Richardson Symphony Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751186008
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Richardson, TX, USA
Phone
9722344195
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Symphony Orchestras

Reported finances

Revenue
$664,641
Expenses
$759,761
Assets
$267,318
Liabilities
$220,802

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Laurie Garvie (President)
  • Leslie Benson (Immediate Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Laurie Garvie (President): $79,100 total reported compensation
  • Clay Couturiaux (Music Director Conductor): $42,000 total reported compensation
  • James Hayden (Director): $3,450 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 quality live musical perfromances of popular and classical music for North Dallas Metroplex area. We also seek to promote music education with an eye towards educating future artists and audiences by offering childrens concerts and classroom visits through our Symphony Days Program.

What it reported doing in 2025

In line with its mission of developing young artists and promoting music education in general the RSO is actively involved in elementary educational programs through our Symphony Days classroom visits and special childrens concerts. Each elementary school in Richardson Independent School District is offered the opportunity to participate in a program which involves an on-site classroom visit by our musicians to demonstrate their instrument and prepare the children to appreciate and enjoy an upcoming concert performed specifically for them at the Eisemann Center. In many cases the concert they attend as part of the Symphony Days program is the first classical concert these children have attended. The program focus is third graders. In the past we have also made the program available to many private schools and home school groups.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 16
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 71.3%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.83; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.4% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 71.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $542K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $79K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 43 of 45 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.