North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
061608947
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6189243556
Rating
48
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,688
Expenses
$41,038
Assets
$65,132

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEvin Peters (President)
  • Karen Kennedy (Past President)
  • Spring Karlo (Vice President)
  • Luisa Kormann (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • KEvin Peters (President)
  • Joseph Ferlo (director)
  • Carey Rayburn (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

North American Performing Arts Managers and Agents is a not-for-profit membership organization that represents the interests of its members in the community of performing arts managers, agents, and professionals who connect artists to audiences regionally, nationally, and internationally.

What it reported doing in 2025

We hold a member retreat annually that focuses on networking, Education, and advancement of the industry

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 22
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 18.6%; rating input score 19
  • Program expense ratio: 26.6%; rating input score 27

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 18.6% of revenue deployed · 26.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 19/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.