Crestline Athletic Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341935251
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Crestline, OH, USA
Phone
4197095780
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,455
Expenses
$56,090
Assets
$135,744

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREA BURTON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ANDREA BURTON (PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN SEFCEK (VICE PRESIDE)
  • BRIDGET TRENT (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To stimulate school and community interest in the athletic programs of the crestline, Ohio public school district, to foster friendly association and cooperation among the crestline, Ohio school administration, coaching staffs and sports fans of said school district. To foster and promote a good sportsmanlike attitude and conduct at all times in all working agreements in school athletics in the crestline, Ohio school district.

What it reported doing in 2024

Expenses incurred for the maintenance and upkeep of sports equipment and facilities for the crestline schools and fees paid by the boosters for various athletic contests

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration and the available information about grant readiness automatic revocation leaves an important question unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • 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: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.7%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.42; rating input score 70; 70th 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: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.