The Naras Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953199223
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Santa Monica, CA, USA
Phone
3103923777
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts Council/Agency

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,948,418
Expenses
$2,386,584
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Neil Portnow (President/CEO)
  • Scott Goldman (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Scott Goldman (Vice President): $235,475 total reported compensation
  • David Sears (Exec Director of Education): $199,751 total reported compensation
  • Kelly Darr (Senior Director): $155,605 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The NARAS Foundation (The Foundation, DBA Grammy Foundation) was established by NARAS to support its educational and preservation-related charitable goals. The Foundation was incorporated in 1988 to cultivate the understanding, appreciation, and advancement of the contribution of recorded music on american culture - from the artistic and technical legends of the past to the still unimagined musical breakthroughs of the future generations of music professionals. The Foundation accomplishes this mission through programs and activities that engage the music industry and cultural community as well as the general public. The Foundation works in partnership year-round with NARAS and its regional offices to bring national attention to important issues, such as the value and impact of music and arts education, and the urgency of preserving our rich cultural heritage.

What it reported doing in 2016

Focusing on all aspects of commercial music, GRAMMY Camp provides interactive residential and non-residential summer music industry training for high school students. The variety of career tracks offered explore the creative process and engage students in the technical aspects of performing, recording and distribution, while emphasizing new and emerging music industry trends. Residential GRAMMY Camps were held in New York and Los Angeles, while a 5-day non-residential version was held in Nashville. Music career tracks covered included Audio Engineering, Electronic Music Production, Instrumental Performance: Bass, Drums, Guitar, Keyboard, Winds & Strings, Music Business, Music Journalism, Video Production & Motion Graphics, Vocal Performance, and Songwriting. All tracks culminate in media projects, album recordings, an open house, and/or performances.In 2014-15 GRAMMY Camp Weekend was added to the Camp programs. GRAMMY Camp Weekend is a one day non-residential music industry experience where a small group (20-30) of high school students can gain an introduction to the business of music. Each weekend session concentrates on one to three career tracks (Audio Engineering, Electronic Music Production, Songwriting, Video Production or Vocal Performance). Participants leave with a better understanding of how the music business works and how they can begin to plan a successful career path. The GRAMMY Foundation partners with local teen centers, schools and community organizations who help identify and select students to attend.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.6%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 62.4%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 7.6%; rating input score 8; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.1%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -33.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -27% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -72.9% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.6% of revenue deployed · 62.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $235K · 22 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.