The Lafayette Society for Performing Arts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581415019
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lagrange, GA, USA
Phone
7068829009
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Performing Arts Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,255,110
Expenses
$1,221,344
Assets
$1,262,797
Liabilities
$81,200

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SAMPLE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KERRI VICE (EXECUTIVE DI): $89,768 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote, cultivate, nurture and enhance the performing arts experiences for all troup county residents. Lafayette society for performing arts, inc (lspa) accomplishes this through managerial, promotional and financial support to numerous local performing arts companies, in order to provide artistic training and performing opportunities for area talent. Additionally, through its artistic companies, lspa delivers a wide variety of high quality performance based presentations for the enjoyment of the community at large, as well as promoting and fostering a higher appreciation for the performing arts in west central Georgia.

What it reported doing in 2024

The goal of the lafayette theatre academy (lta) is to provide a safe and supportive environment for students, of all ages, to express their individuality and creativity, while gaining the knowledge and developing the skills necessary to succeed in all areas of the theatrical arts. The lafayette theatre academy will continuously develop ways for its students to use their training, through academy productions and coordination with the performing arts organizations, under the umbrella of lspa. The education received through the lafayette theatre academy will extend beyond the stage, benefitting students socially, academically, and professionally.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.8%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $47.43 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.8% of revenue deployed · 54.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $662K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.