Teen Dance Company of the Bay Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770533263
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Mountain View, CA, USA
Phone
6502835678
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$206,011
Expenses
$215,075
Assets
$173
Liabilities
$10,642

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1999, teen dance company of the bay area's mission is to provide young dancers with a comprehensive artistic education that fosters excellence in technical performance, freedom in artistic creation, a greater awareness of dance as an intrinsic form of human expression, and a deeper understanding of the cultural impact of arts.

What it reported doing in 2010

To develop and improve educational and performance opportunities for teen dancers and to re-define the prospective of youth and teen in society.

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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • 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: -4.4%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 61.51; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -191.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $186K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • 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: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.