Cascade Volleyball Club of Seattle

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261838241
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2062291195
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$390,706
Expenses
$366,625
Assets
$509,583
Liabilities
$11,450

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GENE FONG LIM (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • VALERIE KOCH (Executive Dir.): $67,269 total reported compensation
  • RENITA GRAY (Director): $16,049 total reported compensation
  • DARREN GRAY (Treasurer): $5,137 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 promote, educate and expand the volleyball sport using principles of teamwork, individual responsibility and good sportsmanship in competitive, and non-competitive activities. A primary goal is to develop skills in each player and enable them to participate in higher levels of team and recreational environments at local schools, both regionally and nationally.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cascade's competitive youth volleyball program fielded 6 female teams (u12 through u18 age groups). Each team consisted of 12 or 13 players for a total of 75 players and were coached by 2 coaches per team. All coaches are certified by the USA volleyball association. The teams competed for 7 months (practicing 2 times per week from november to may) and participated at regional and national qualifying tournaments in western Washington & spokane. Cascade volleyball also offered clinics in fall and winter, 7 weeks of summer camps, and an 8-week grass clinic that reached 688 unique players.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 65
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.2%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.1%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.