Radost Folk Ensemble

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911188971
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2067194830
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Reported finances

Revenue
$33,538
Expenses
$27,929
Assets
$44,046
Liabilities
$33

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anya Deering (President)
  • Mary Goldman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Margo Reich (Finance Director)
  • Sidney Deering (Artistic Director)
  • Anya Deering (President)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote by performance and teaching East European Music and Dance.

What it reported doing in 2024

Production of East European folklore, music, song and dance concerts with workshops to educate and promote understanding of musical cultures, approx attendance 1500.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - 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: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.7%; rating input score 29
  • Program expense ratio: 34.4%; rating input score 34

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.7%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.7% of revenue deployed · 34.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.