South County Performing Arts Building Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770150216
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Arroyo Grande, CA, USA
Phone
8054734683
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scouting

Reported finances

Revenue
$72,546
Expenses
$86,089
Assets
$1,500,072
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JACK SMITH (PRESIDENT)
  • BRENT CHRISTENSEN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • NATHAN ALVARADO (DIRECTOR)
  • BERNICE FLOOD (DIRECTOR)
  • RON KAUTZ (DIRECTOR)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support to the clark center, a performing arts venue on the campus of arroyo grande high school in arroyo grande, California. To provide performing arts scholarships and grants to deserving students and teachers in all schools within the lucia mar school district.

What it reported doing in 2016

The organization provides funds to maintain the clark center, a performing arts building in south san luis obispo county on property owned by the lucia mar unified school district. The organization assists in overseeing the operation of the building and providing for maintenance and replacement of equipment and building components. The facility is to benefit the public schools and all members of the community. The foundation is a season sponsor, show sponsor and table sponsor for performances at the clark center and fundraisers hosted by the clark center performing arts association.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.4%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,637.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.1%; rating input score 87; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.42; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.4% of revenue deployed · 72.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $62K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2011 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.