Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Assoc Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 270852550
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- College Station, TX, USA
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $63,585
- Expenses
- $62,501
- Assets
- $109,063
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Billy Hart (President)
People named in this filing
- Billy Hart (President)
- Candi Carriero (Registrar)
- Rick Seabolt (VP)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Brazos Valley Youth Soccer Association, Inc is a subordinate unit listed on the South Texas Youth Soccer Association (STYSA) exemption roster and is covered under the STYSA group exemption (GEN 7012). AS a subordinate unit of STYSA, the organization's primary purpose is to teach good sportsmanship, promote physical health and develop and promote the game of soccer among youth participants and adult sponsors within the area of jurisdiction of the Association. The organization acts as the local governing agency for STYSA and is responsible for registering players, procuring adult coaches, obtaining background checks on adult coaches and providing uniforms and other supplies for the teams formed and registered under the Association.
What it reported doing in 2024
The Organization acts as the regional affiliate of the South Texas Youth Soccer Association. Its primary purpose is to teach good sportsmanship, promote physical health and develop and promote the game of soccer among youth participants and adult sponsors within the area of jurisdiction of the Association.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.74; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $61K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.