Coastal Cities Volleyball Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 933947716
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Portsmouth, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7577398610
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $147,535
- Expenses
- $120,396
- Assets
- $30,406
- Liabilities
- $2,500
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELIZABETH ARNETTE (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- ELIZABETH ARNETTE (PRESIDENT)
- BOB G ARNETTE (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Cities volleyball club is an aau-affiliated, non-profit organization dedicated to helping young athletes in the hampton roads / elizabeth river area grow through high-quality training and competitionoffered at a cost that keeps our programs as accessible as possible. Our program focuses on strengthening volleyball techniques, while emphasizing the importance of developing leadership and teamwork skills. With decades of experience as former volleyball players and as coaches, our staff has an eye for recognizing potential and the ability to help athletes achieve success in the sport.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 91
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 51
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 85.1%; rating input score 85
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 85.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $126K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 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.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.