Athletes Equity Resource Center In

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843878995
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Glendale, AZ, USA
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rape Victim Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$27,719
Expenses
$49,074
Assets
$46,279
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIANE CARNEY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DIANE CARNEY (PRESIDENT)
  • TRACY BROOKS (VICE PRESIDE)
  • BETSIE BOLGER (SECRETARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Abuse in sport is, unacceptable and establisning protocls to protect minors and advocating for safety in sport is essential. While the forming of the u.s. Center for safesport in 2017 was a step in the right direction, we, as athletes, coaches and sports, enthusiasts, have been disheartened by the lack of support of those going through the safesport process. Athletes should not be ignored when they express fear and concern. Nor should their sports governing body (ngb or lao) administrations and related entities be shielded when they fall to take action on reports, resulting in further harm to athletes they are supposed to protect. However, stories of re-traumatized victims and members of the public confused about their legal rights inspired the athletes equity resource center to launch, in the spring of 2021 as a 501(c)(3) organization. Our goal was to design a center to lend help navigating the challenges brought forth by the emotionally'charged events surrounding safesport reporting an

What it reported doing in 2025

Abuse in sport is, unacceptable and establisning protocls to protect minors and advocating for safety in sport is essential. While the forming of the u.s. Center for safesport in 2017 was a step in the right direction, we, as athletes, coaches and sports, enthusiasts, have been disheartened by the lack of support of those going through the safesport process. Athletes should not be ignored when they express fear and concern. Nor should their sports governing body (ngb or lao) administrations and related entities be shielded when they fall to take action on reports, resulting in further harm to athletes they are supposed to protect. However, stories of re-traumatized victims and members of the public confused about their legal rights inspired the athletes equity resource center to launch, in the spring of 2021 as a 501(c)(3) organization. Our goal was to design a center to lend help navigating the challenges brought forth by the emotionally'charged events surrounding safesport reporting and investigations. The aerc has unwavering support for safesport's priniary mission of protecting athletes within the olympic movement from any threats of abuse. We also recognize that safespbrt was created out of the failure of national governing bodies:(ngbs)and the usopc to properly respond to credible reports of sexual abuse by trainers and officials; their failure to report these crimes to law enforcement; and their wiliingness to hide the extent of that abuse over decades all must be addressed. While the aerc does not handle individual cases, the center provides guidance and resource tools to victims, respondents via the athletes assistance program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.7%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -77%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -49.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -32% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -18.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.7% of revenue deployed · 0.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $305 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.