Casper Coyotes Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464724570
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2013, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Mills, WY, USA
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Reported finances

Revenue
$31,303
Expenses
$18,237
Assets
$19,278
Liabilities
$2,145

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chad Parrish (President)

People named in this filing

  • Chad Parrish (President)
  • John Ambrefe (Director)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the organization is to offer amateur programs through a volunteer base for all people; to promote good sportsmanship and good citizenship; to conduct programs that provide for, enhance and strengthen participation and competition for amateur athletes.

What it reported doing in 2015

Funding of a locker room at the team's practice facility to provide a venue to house and train the team members promoting a higher level of competitive hockey.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 33.9%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 58.2%; rating input score 58

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.7%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -32% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 33.9% of revenue deployed · 58.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $11K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.