Clements High School Athletic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760442571
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sugar Land, TX, USA
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$337,657
Expenses
$304,524
Assets
$224,860
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sabrina Malhorta (President)

People named in this filing

  • Sabrina Malhorta (President)
  • Mindy Cabble (VP)
  • Nicole Phillips (Secretary)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Clements Athletic Booster Club (CABC) is committed to supporting the athletic programs at Clements High School. CABC strives to promote sportsmanship, leadership, teamwork and a strong work ethic both on the field & in the classroom among our student-athletes.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tennis: To support the Clements Tennis team Track: To support the Clements Track team Golf: To support the Clements Golf team Swim: To support the Clements Swim team Softball: To support the Clements Softball team Boy Basketball: To support the Clements Boys Basketball team Girls Soccer: To support the Clements Girls Soccer team Volleyball: To support the Clements Volleyball team Cross Country: To support the Clements Cross Country team Boys Soccer: To support the Clements Boys Soccer team Girls Basketball: To support the Clements Girls Basketball team Girls Track & Field: To support the Clements Girls Track & Field team Trainer: To support the Clements Trainer team Water Polo: To support the Clements Water Polo team

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for member benefits.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.8%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $301K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.