Chris Cammisa Tennis & Education Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473537715
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Fairfield, CA, USA
Phone
7078530915
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$91,028
Expenses
$144,457
Assets
$8,524
Liabilities
$65,354

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PHIL CELLO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STEVE DEVRIES (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PHIL CELLO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • STEVE DEVRIES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GARY MATSUMURA (TREASURER)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide athletic opportunities and training, academic spport, and behavior guidance to promote the health, social, educationl, vocational and character development of boys and girls, without regard to race, religion, color or national origin.

What it reported doing in 2016

Atp 100k men's challenger tournament: professional tennis tournaments organized and run by the chris cammisa education foundation. Hosted 50 players from the world and run the single and dobule tournaments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 54.7%; rating input score 55

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 7.67; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.6% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 51.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 54.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2015 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.