Collegiate Commissioners Association Ncaa Division Ii
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 562198642
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Westlake, OH, USA
- Phone
- 4408924000
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $106,783
- Expenses
- $67,756
- Assets
- $434,086
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- REID AMOS (PRESIDENT)
- WILL PREWITT (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
- KRIS DUNBAR (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- REID AMOS (PRESIDENT)
- WILL PREWITT (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
- KRIS DUNBAR (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
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
The collegiate commissioners association, division ii provides to its college and university members a forum to coordinate the student-athlete experience for the ncaa division ii conference members. There are 293 ncaa division ii schools and universities that the cca-divii supports.
What it reported doing in 2024
Held two annual meetings that coordinate the student-athlete experience for ncaa division ii conference members. There are 293 ncaa division ii schools and universities that the cca supports.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 86
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.41; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -32.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.