The Center for Worship & Music Studies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472135611
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Minneapolis, MN, USA
Phone
6122528614
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Reported finances

Revenue
$112,835
Expenses
$98,826
Assets
$29,226
Liabilities
$1,622

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANE PEDERSON (President)

People named in this filing

  • ROLAND MARTINSON (Director)
  • BRENDA MOORE (Treasurer)
  • JOHN CHRISTOPHERSON (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To prepare musicians and others for planning and leading thoughtful and vibrant worship; to equip them to teach and mentor others; to train and support them in guiding their communities in the discernment of their worship practices.

What it reported doing in 2015

Led music at multiple synod assemblies, developed critical partnerships with individuals, congregations, and higher education institutions, continued advancement work, developed curriculum with team, launched program of classes in the fall, created learning management system and integrated it with online registration.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.9%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 9%; rating input score 9

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.3; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.9% of revenue deployed · 9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.