Baseballtown Charities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
161663348
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reading, PA, USA
Phone
6104064547
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Corporate Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$301,866
Expenses
$455,960
Assets
$886,663
Liabilities
$1,127,022

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charles J Domino (President)
  • Scott M Hunsicker (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Charles J Domino (President)
  • Scott M Hunsicker (Vice President)
  • Matthew M Jackson (Director)

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the charity is to provide educational and recreational opportunities for children in the greater Reading, Pennsylvania area and Berks County, and provide financial assistance to charitable organizations in the Reading area serving underprivileged and disadvantaged youth and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

In December 2018, Baseballtown Charities undertook a new challenge to help individuals showing promise in the sports of baseball and softball improve their skills. Rip It for Life selects kids that may not have the economic wherewithal to get top notch baseball and softball training. We identify players who have the desire to be better, but would not otherwise have access to the type of instructors and facilities that Rip It for Life can provide. We give these players a chance to be better, on the field and off. And off the field, Rip It for Life can provide an additional shoulder to lean on when necessary. Rip It for Life believe socio-economic challenges should not be an impediment to their journey to be better players and better people.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.8%; rating input score 93; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -51%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.94; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.27; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $412K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.