Amateur Athletic Union of the United States
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841648933
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2009–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015
- Location
- Memphis, TN, USA
- Phone
- 9013601037
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Recreational l Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $14,056
- Expenses
- $14,106
- Assets
- $100
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
People named in this filing
- Anita Long (Coach)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of our organization is to impact the health and well being of our city's youth through organized and competitive events that teach athletes team building, setting and developing goals, and developing positive social skills through hard work and dedication. Tax exemption helps to offset the cost of printing for uniforms, tshirts, and backpacks. We are also able to buy track and field equipment.
What it reported doing in 2015
Our organization serviced 60 athletes ranging in age from 7-18 years old. Our team was District Champions at the Southeast AAU Championships, as well as the Regional Champions. Our team competed for one week in Orlando, FL at the Club National Championships and also competed in the Junior Olympic Games in Houston, Texas for one week. Our athlete roster contains city, state, and national champions. During our indoor season, our athletes travel and compete in 2-3 meets in Birmingham, Alabama, as well as meets at Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN), University of Arkansas (Fayetteville, AR), University of Kentucky (Lexington, KY), and Southeast Missouri University (Cape Girardeau, MO).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 73.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.