The Manhattan Ballet Co Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
132980636
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2125356556
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities

Reported finances

Revenue
$76,396
Expenses
$81,950
Assets
$6,902
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELFRIEDE MERMAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELFRIEDE MERMAN (PRESIDENT): $4,471 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promotion of classical ballet dancing

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 60% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 42.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -84.1% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $80K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.