Bay Area Youth Rugby Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
263252059
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2011
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4159670127
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$196,265
Expenses
$112,759
Assets
$208,476
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Arthur Potter (Director)
  • Ryan Burke (Director)
  • Bisi Ibrahim (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization offers opportunities for instruction and training for youth in the sport of rugby. This takes the form of clinics and camps offering the donated services of of qualified coaches and trainers open to the general public which will take place in the summer. Rugby's traditional season is the winter and spring, and during that time there are from two to four weekly instruction sessions and opportunities for further learning through participation in local, regional and national competitions. Participants will be charged a small amount to defray the expense of providing the program services, although no one is turned away for nonpayment.

What it reported doing in 2017

Instruction and Training

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% 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 total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the available information about grant readiness automatic revocation leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 42.5%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.85; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 90.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 74.7% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 50.1% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $110K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2016 to 2017
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.