Skylight Theatre Company

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954007314
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2137617061
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Theater

Reported finances

Revenue
$626,530
Expenses
$696,133
Assets
$206,231
Liabilities
$324,102

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ARMANDO HUIPE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARMANDO HUIPE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $57,621 total reported compensation
  • GARY GROSSMAN (ARTISTIC DIRECTOR): $13,570 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission is to promote interest in the arts through the presentation of theatrical performances.

What it reported doing in 2025

Investment in Playwright Development . We continued investing in playwrights creative process by expanding our staff infrastructure to include administrative, technical, and marketing support. This strengthened our ability to develop new work, support artists, and deepen community engagement. Core Programs : Stage Productions: We developed and produced unproduced original plays, providing dramaturgical support, mentorship, and production resources throughout the creative process. InkUBator : We offered full-scale play-development workshops and actor-creator opportunities that helped artists test, refine, and advance new theatrical work. Community Conversations: We hosted free in-person events, including panels and community activities designed to engage and support marginalized communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% 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 - 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: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -11.1%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.57; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $589K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.