NBS Classical Music Institute

Legal name: Nbs Classical Music Institute Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232788513
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Haverford, PA, USA
Phone
610-896-5105
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,512
Expenses
$108,681
Assets
$520,950
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elena Berman (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Lefkovitz (Administrator): $5,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide scholarship to qualified students in the study of classical music at the Nelly Berman School of Music. The scholarships will be awarded on basis on talent and/or need, as determined by a committee of the Institute accountable to its Board of Directors; Provide scholarships to support chamber music groups at the Nelly Berman School of Music. These scholarships will be awarded on the basis of talent and/or need, as determined by a committee of the Institute accountable to its Board of Directors; Present concerts, competitions, masterclasses, and workshops to the public in the greater Philadelphia area; Present concerts at local institutions, including retirement and nursing homes

What it reported doing in 2025

152 individual scholarship awards were made for taking advanced music training. Awards were made on the basis of talent, a willingness to take two lessons per week, adhere to a suitable practice schedule, and have the need for such support. Scholarships are awarded by a committee of judges formed from the grantee organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -43.9%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.79; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $109K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $6K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.