College Place Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471709368
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
College Place, WA, USA
Phone
5095223312
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,411
Expenses
$58,807
Assets
$153,409

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN SEE (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAN SEE (PRESIDENT)
  • CORY DAVIS (VICE-PRESIDE)
  • JENNY MCMILLAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote and support all college place school disrict curricular and extracurricular activities, promoting athletic sportsmanship, academic excellence, and instilling pride in all school activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Monetary support for the following: counseling team, sbac testing snacks, united way adopt-a-student, volleyball and football camp fees, freshman orientation snacks, community volunteer gift cards, highly capable, sr. Class party, choir trip, color run, cheer camp, counseling team cp strong/cp way and other miscellaneous support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.2%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 64.4%; rating input score 64

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.6%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.61; rating input score 72; 72nd 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: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.2% of revenue deployed · 64.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.