Chapmanville Youth Football League

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830695303
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Chapmanville, WV, USA
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$34,009
Expenses
$36,728
Assets
$49,760

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Toler (President)
  • Cody Perry (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John Toler (President)
  • Cody Perry (Vice President)
  • Heather Quick (Tresurer)

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

Chapmanville Youth Football League Inc. is organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes to provide youth football and cheerleading programs for children in the Chapmanville West Virginia area. The organization promotes physical fitness teamwork leadership discipline sportsmanship character development and community involvement through organized athletic activities practices competitions and related youth development programs. The league also provides equipment facilities training opportunities and community-based events that support the development and well-being of participating youth.

What it reported doing in 2025

Chapmanville Youth Football League Inc. operated youth football and cheerleading programs serving children in the Chapmanville West Virginia area. The organization provided athletic instruction equipment uniforms practice facilities game operations and related youth development activities focused on teamwork discipline sportsmanship physical fitness and community involvement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 74% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

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%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 56; 56th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.