Austin High Girls Soccer Booster Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 881725763
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2023–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5122280064
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $45,331
- Expenses
- $67,209
- Assets
- $49,664
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Clee Upchurch (1st Vice President - Membership)
- Sue Pieczonka (President)
- Julie Koster (3rd Vice President - Food)
- Jessica Dierks (4th Vice President - Apparel)
- Erin Dempsey (5th Vice President - Banquet)
People named in this filing
- Jennifer Banda (Secretary)
- Clee Upchurch (1st Vice President - Membership)
- Sue Pieczonka (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Austin High Girls Soccer Booster Club, Inc. is organized to support the athletes, parents, coaches, and administrative staff of The Austin High School Girls Soccer program by raising funds, conducting events, and recruiting volunteers.
What it reported doing in 2025
Uniforms and Equipment
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 32
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 54.2%; rating input score 54
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -48.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 40; 40th 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 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.3% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 54.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.