Boys & Girls Club of Buena Park

Legal name: Boys and Girls Club of Buena Park

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
951808525
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Buena Park, CA, US
Phone
(714) 522-7200
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Boys Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,760,082
Expenses
$2,414,311
Assets
$3,206,588
Liabilities
$352,140

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DARREN FRANK (PRESIDENT)
  • CARMEN KOO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TODD TROUT (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TODD TROUT (CEO): $152,262 total reported compensation
  • LUZ VALENZUELA-TROUT (OPERATIONS DIRECTOR): $136,495 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enable all young people, especially those who need us most, to reach their full potential as productive, caring, responsible citizens.

What it reported doing in 2024

Promote the physical, mental, and moral wellbeing of boys and girls by providing education, recreation, and guidance to children from various ethnicities and income level. The specific and primary purpose of the club was to operate an educational and recreational club for boys and girls in the buena park area in order to promote their physical, mental, and moral wellbeing. The majority of the club's revenues are received in the form of contributions and fundraising events, as well as membership and program activity fees.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.9%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.5%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 64.9% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 17 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.