Baller Dream Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320529917
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Phone
8774183166
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Patient Services - Entertainment, Recreation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,352,422
Expenses
$1,162,309
Assets
$700,635
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK DEBLASI (PRESIDENT/FOUNDER/DIRECTOR)
  • JENNIFER VAN MOORLEHEM (CEO THRU JUNE 30/DIRECTOR)
  • TONYA GOLLOTTE (CEO AS OF JULY 1)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAIGE MADDUX (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $175,000 total reported compensation
  • TONYA GOLLOTTE (CEO AS OF JULY 1): $68,089 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER VAN MOORLEHEM (CEO THRU JUNE 30/DIRECTOR): $62,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Through major gifting, in-hospital programming, community events and financial support, baller dream develops lasting relationships to create an environment where kids feel supported, families feel connected, and communities feel inspired.

What it reported doing in 2024

In hospital programming: brightening long days of treatment, we bring fun to the hospital through crafts, games, puzzles and other distractions. Major gifting: through generous donations, baller dream foundation also curates customized "personalized dream experiences" for qualifying recipients.financial assistance: baller dream foundation offers families and individuals different levels of financial support.building a community: we aim to create an environment where all our ballers feel a sense of belonging and their families feel supported by the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.5%; rating input score 42
  • Program expense ratio: 49.4%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.6%; rating input score 98; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.3%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 38.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.5% of revenue deployed · 49.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $575K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.