Atascadero FFA Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943510052
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Atascadero, CA, USA
Phone
9492288085
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$69,539
Expenses
$58,233
Assets
$86,297

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Josslyn Wagster (President)
  • Jennifer Mason (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Josslyn Wagster (President)
  • Carrie Pulse (Secretary)
  • Jennifer Mason (Vice President)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the Atascadero FFA Boosters is to give support to the High School Agriculture Department, Students and Faculty. To provide support and assistance to the High School FFA Chapter in the form of labor and/or financing as needed and available.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided labor and monetary support: In furthering the academic progression of the students in the agriculture & FFA Department at Atascadero High School. Transportation and lodging for state and national judging events, livestock competition. Supplies, fee and equipment for high school farm.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.3%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.3% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $58K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.