Reading Civic Opera Society Incorporated
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 236394242
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Reading, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6104042568
- Rating
- 44
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Theater
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $257,757
- Expenses
- $180,650
- Assets
- $365,175
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jeannette DeAngelo (President)
- Andrew Angstadt (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Jeannette DeAngelo (President)
- Andrew Angstadt (Vice President)
- Angela DeAngelo (Secretary)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Reading Civic Theatre will provide high quality musical theatre in the Reading Berks County area with a commitment to entertaining the public in the field of theatre arts with the primary mission of training and developing talent within our community.
What it reported doing in 2025
In October RCT performed six shows of the Broadway musical Sweeney Todd. Attendance capacity was around 80%.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 73% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 voting board members are independent.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 6
- Sustainability: 72
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 36.5%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 52.1%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 29.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.02; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 36.5% of revenue deployed · 52.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 8 filed program accomplishments · $94K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 33 of 42 current checks pass · 9 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesLegal column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesProfFundraising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.