Cornhusker Wrestling Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470772854
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4022122302
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$207,464
Expenses
$168,588
Assets
$35,923
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dan Vacha (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dan Vacha (President): $3,655 total reported compensation
  • Jim Allen (Director): $600 total reported compensation
  • Doug Denson (Secretary): $600 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote and teach the sport of wrestling

What it reported doing in 2018

Conduct state team duals wrestling tournament. Approximately 26 teams and 450 youth from grades 3 to 8 participated.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% 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

SUPPORTED - 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: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 52
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.5%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 0th 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.1%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 14.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 0 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $171K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2009 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.