Creekview Ranch School PTA

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900388982
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Roseville, CA, USA
Phone
9167708845
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,674
Expenses
$61,817
Assets
$12,171

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sara Spencer (President)
  • Sam Sidhu (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Sara Spencer (President)
  • Sam Sidhu (Vice-President)
  • Sarah Cook (Treasurer)

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 organizations primary exempt purpose is to organize fundraisers and activities for the benefit of the students and teachers of Creekview Ranch School.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the 2024-2025 year the PTA was able to provide funds to enable the students to have assemblies, to put on various events for the students and their families, to host events for teacher appreciation, and to provide school supplies and prizes/incentives for the school to use as needed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 68.5%; rating input score 68

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 16; 16th 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: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 68.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $42K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.