CVHS Cheer Booster

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
871073997
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Buckeye, AZ, USA
Phone
6026808672
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$88,481
Expenses
$88,479
Assets
$4,527
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brad Baker (President)
  • Michele Rozansky (Vice President)
  • Nita Catt (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Brad Baker (President)
  • Michele Rozansky (Vice President)
  • Nita Catt (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

CVHS Cheer Booster is a high school booster club used to promote projects that provide facilities, equipment, tools, supplies, funds, volunteers, or other needs that go beyond that provided by the AFUHSD that require assistance towards realizing the objectives of the CVHS Cheer program while collaborating with the surrounding communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Nationals Competition - Took 31 athletes and 2 coaches to a Nationals Cheer Competition from Arizona to California for 6 days. Funds collected, raised, and used to cover registration fees, travel, parking, special travel gear, team gifts, team and family outing, and team meals

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.05; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.5% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $118K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.