Tara Institute of the Performing Arts

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841274823
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Boulder, CO, USA
Phone
3034404510
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,463,142
Expenses
$2,366,110
Assets
$2,101,123
Liabilities
$1,827,673

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN SCHULTZ (BUSINESS MANAGER): $72,659 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH BARRICKLOW (TRUSTEE): $67,800 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE BARRICKLOW (TRUSTEE): $61,670 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organizations primary exempt purpose is to provide a rigorous academic high school education with an emphasis on the performing arts, travel and experiential learning.

What it reported doing in 2023

Tara has an average total enrollment of 42 students in grades nine through twelve. During each full year of enrollment, each student participates in several performing arts productions, significant travel experiences, and a rich array of academic classes. Over the course of the full four-year program, students work with experts in dance, choral singing, drama, musical theatre, set design, stage lighting, and stage sound to create four plays, four musicals, and eight community festival events. Similarly, during their four-year tara experience, students participate in two cultural and art immersion trips to nyc, one service treip to learn and work with native american communities, one geology rafting excursion, and a month long cultural immersion in specific regions in europe. In addition, during their four years at tara, students participate in a number of in-the-field experiencial opportunities and week-long off site immersion learning retreats associated with their academic classes. These program services represent the bluk of continued on schedule o statement 2

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 66% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.7%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 84.9%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.37 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.9%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.7% of revenue deployed · 84.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.