Brea Olinda Soccer Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953500485
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Brea, CA, USA
Phone
9098692448
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,950
Expenses
$62,004
Assets
$34,376

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AIRAN JANSEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAN COLL (TREASURER)
  • AIRAN JANSEN (PRESIDENT)

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 brea olinda high school soccer booster club is a non-profit volunteer organization working to supplement and support both the boys- and girls' soccer programs at brea olinda high school to ensure our programs' prominence for years to come. This will be achieved through the coordination of various ongoing communications for program participants and through our volunteer support to secure maximum financial support from individuals, organizations, and businesses that have, or currently do, benefit from the boys- and girls' soccer program at bohs.

What it reported doing in 2025

The brea olinda high school soccer booster is an organization that supports the needs of the brea olinda high school soccer teams. It gives financial support to the team by paying for all assistant coaches to support the three levels (varsity, junior varsity and fresh/soph) for both the boys and girls programs. It also pays for new uniforms, sweatshirts and jackets. In addition the brea olinda high school soccer boosters pays for all tournaments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.8%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 33; 33rd 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: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 19.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 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 III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.