Worcester Center for Performing Arts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
050521735
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Worcester, MA, USA
Phone
5084711760
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Arts, Cultural Organizations - Multipurpose

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,759,085
Expenses
$13,644,455
Assets
$10,407,072
Liabilities
$3,190,343

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALAN SEIFFERT (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • TROY SEIBELS (PRESIDENT/CEO (FORMER))

Highest reported compensation

  • TROY SEIBELS (PRESIDENT/CEO (FORMER)): $342,692 total reported compensation
  • JANINE DILIBERTO (VP FINANCE & HR): $151,845 total reported compensation
  • MEGHAN MONTANER (VP - CONSERVATORY & EDUCAT): $148,762 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Worcester center for performing arts promotes and/or hosts more than 250 performances and welcomes more than 150,000 attendees each year. The hanover theatre conservatory reaches more than 700 students in theatre, technical theatre and dance classes and summer programs. The hanover theatre reportory brings to the stage a series of plays produced in worcester, for worcester. In addition to providing a venue for broadway shows and other world-class performances previously unavailable in our region, the theatre has greatly increased the visibility of worcester as a cultural destination and has catalyzed profound change in its downtown.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 91
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.76; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.8% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $343K · 31 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $101K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.