Wisconsin Music Teachers Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391316333
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
5157781374
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$77,002
Expenses
$71,566
Assets
$163,570
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mary Tollefson (President)
  • Stacey Krause (1st Vice President - Conference)
  • Justin Krueger (2nd Vice President - Membership)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sydney Rinkleff (Treasurer): $1,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Wisconsin Music Teachers Association (WMTA) is to advance the value of music study and music-making to society and to support the professionalism of music teachers.

What it reported doing in 2024

Student Competitions: WMTA provides student musicians the opportunity to perform and compete in six annual events - District Auditions, Regional Keyboard Competition, State Keyboard Competition, State Vocal & Instrumental Competition, Young Composer Festival, and MTNA State Competitions. Students gain performance and musicianship skills, and the outside judging evaluation encourages teachers to develop effective instruction methods. Students participated in District Auditions, Regional Keyboard, State Keyboard, State Vocal & Instrumental, Young Composer Festival, and MTNA Competitions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 79% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.1%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.29; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.1%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 89.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 409 of 409 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $64K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.