Bear Metal Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
275383513
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Renton, WA, USA
Phone
2066972382
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,804
Expenses
$77,853
Assets
$70,660
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Cynthia Hoppe (President)
  • Brandon Hurlburt (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Cynthia Hoppe (President)
  • Brandon Hurlburt (Vice President)
  • Melissa Defrance (Secretary)

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

The Robotics team includes approximately 100 High School students from Tahoma High. THe three largest fundraisers include: 1. Summer Camps - STEM focused summer camps for grades 3-8 with 30 students acting as mentors to over 150 participants 2. Sr. Yard Signs - Sale of yard signs for Tahoma High School Students, benefiting the robotics team 3. Mattress Sale - One day sale of Mattresses at the school, benefitting the robotics team.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Tahoma Robotics/Bear Metal Booster Club exists to promote connection and support for FIRST Robotics programs for youth of all ages in Maple Valley, WA. The Robotics team includes approximately 100 High School students from Tahoma High.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 60% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.3%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 45; 45th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.