Wichita Falls Symphony League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237412638
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021
Location
Wichita Falls, TX, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Symphony Orchestras

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,436
Expenses
$32,983
Assets
$67,183
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN HUNTER X (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VIVIAN WOLFE (PRESIDENT)
  • ELAINE DAVENPORT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DOTTI LESIEUR (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KAREN BAUCUS (DIRECTOR)
  • SUSAN BAHR (DIRECTOR)
  • GENIE RATLIFF (SECRETARY)

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

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization exists to support the wichita falls symphony orchestra and to promote community support for cultural and musical activities

What it reported doing in 2021

The organization encouraged and supported young musicians through scholarship awards to eligible students. The scholarships were awarded to the winners of open competitions in four musical genres which were judged by independent judges who are not directly connected to the organization. Scholarships were awarded to twelve individuals and ranged from $100 to $300 each. The scholarships that were awarded are to be used by the students to help defray their expenses relating to musical and cultural programs of study.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.8%; rating input score 97
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 23rd 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -128.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.04; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $32K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.