Temecula Valley Master Chorale

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330928024
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
Phone
8323687163
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Singing, Choral

Reported finances

Revenue
$63,510
Expenses
$48,410
Assets
$19,166
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nancy Marshall (President)
  • Rob Haskins (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Nancy Marshall (President)
  • Rob Haskins (Vice President)
  • Ann Mulder (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Temecula Valley Master Chorale provides choral music for the enrichment of the community, supports musicians, & encourages young musical artists through scholarships and by inviting them to publicly perform at our concerts.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Temecula Valley Master Chorale supported local musicians by providing the chorale to perform with, and used instrumentalists as well as singers in the perfomances.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.8%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.