12 Fields Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462604910
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5123299600
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,314
Expenses
$70,070
Assets
$4,416
Liabilities
$129,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS ELLIS (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • CHRIS SHULEY (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • MIKE DEALY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • CHRIS ELLIS (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • CHRIS SHULEY (VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • ROSS JESSUP (SECRETARY/DIRECTOR)

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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

12 fields foundation was created to address the field space shortage that was causing problems for the community sports leagues in the westlake community of austin, Texas.

What it reported doing in 2020

12 fields foundation is currently working to develop and raise funds for two projects to address the field space shortage in the westlake community. The river hills sports park has plans for two baseball fields and two multi-use fields that will be lined for football, soccer, lacrosse and rugby. The park is located on land owned by the non-profit western hills little league. The baldwin sports park has plans for five baseball fields and will be developed on land leased from the eanes independent school district, which serves the westlake community. Both facilities will have dedicated concessions, restroom facilities and community playscapes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.6%; rating input score 99
  • Program expense ratio: 98.9%; rating input score 99
  • 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: 99.6%; rating input score 100; 60th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 29.21; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.6% of revenue deployed · 98.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2013 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.