Aurora Aces Baseball Club Nfp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471499354
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Yorkville, IL, USA
Phone
6306610562
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$89,999
Expenses
$95,877
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW THILL (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANDREW THILL (PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT EVERHART (SECRETARY)
  • FRED LOVELY (OFFICER)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization is organized exclusively for fostering national amateur sports competition under section 501 (c) (3) of the internal revenue code or corresponding section of any future federal tax code.

What it reported doing in 2016

Aurora aces baseball club provided individuals (ages8-18) the opportunity to play baseball in an organized program that provieds the elements necessary to participate, such as instruction, equipment, uniforms and league & tournament fees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 69.5%; rating input score 70

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.5%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st 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: -21.3% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -32.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.1% of revenue deployed · 69.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • 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.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.