Sinaca Studios - School of Glass and Gallery

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261277545
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Fort Worth, TX, USA
Phone
8178990024
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Visual Arts Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$608,829
Expenses
$664,892
Assets
$188,183
Liabilities
$718,448

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CLIFTON CROFFORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL CUMMINGS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEVIN MCGEHEE (STUDIOS COORDINATOR): $45,720 total reported compensation
  • CLIFTON CROFFORD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $39,279 total reported compensation
  • HEIDI CHILDERS (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): $34,848 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To design, build and maintain a state of the art facility dedicated to educating a broad cross-section of the community in all forms of art glass studio techniques. Sinaca offers classes, workshops, and studio equipment rental, facility rental and a public gallery.

What it reported doing in 2024

The three primary programs of the organization are to provide instruction through classes and demonstrations to educate the general community in the art of glass making, to provide glass making studios for rent to encourage individual glass making artists in the community and to provide a gallery for student and local artists to sell their creations to the public.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.2%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.82; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.6%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 60.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $404K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.