NAMM Foundation A Not-For-Profit Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330797657
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Carlsbad, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7604388001
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,264,031
- Expenses
- $2,093,433
- Assets
- $11,089,213
- Liabilities
- $147,970
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Mlynczak (President)
People named in this filing
- John Mlynczak (President)
- Joe Castronovo (Chairman)
- Dinah Gretsch (Vice Chairman)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Advancing active participation in music making across the lifespan by supporting scientific research, philanthropic giving and public service programs from the international music products industry and providing a museum to display historical treasures in music.
What it reported doing in 2024
Music Research and Music Education - Fund research to encourage the study worldwide of music education and early childhood and the effects of music making on early childhood cognition, intelligence, behavior and wellness.Educating the public about music and encouraging young and old in amateur music making. Place music education articles in regional and local print and broadcastmedia outlets. NAMM Foundation's goals are to build credibility for music and music education, especially at an early age, and to expand that portion of the American population that enjoys and makes its own music, and that supports music and the arts and understands their value in education.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 58% for direct work, and 42% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 42
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 90
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
- Requires narrative reports: Limited
- Conducts field audits: Limited
- May suspend future funding: Limited
- Requires financial reports: Limited
- Conducts site visits: Limited
- Requires grant agreements: Limited
- May require repayment: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 94.8%; rating input score 95; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.3; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
- People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.