Eastview Lacrosse Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841702816
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2015–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Apple Valley, MN, USA
- Phone
- 6126163764
- Rating
- 33
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $19,430
- Expenses
- $36,273
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEN HUETTEN (PRESIDENT)
- AMY MARBLE (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KEN HUETTEN (PRESIDENT)
- AMY MARBLE (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JAYNE CHURNESS (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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
This association is organized primarily for providing youth lacrosse related educational and charitable purposes. The organizations intent is to offer meaninguly support to young people within the eastview community as a whole. To this end, the organization shall at all times be operated exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(e) of the internal revnue code of 1986 as now encacted or herrin amended, inclusions for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, all funds whether income or prinicipal and whethr acquired by gift or contributor or otherwise shall be devoted to said purpose.
What it reported doing in 2023
Provides for youth lacrosse athletic activities and for lacrosse related educational and charitable purposes.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 66% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 82
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 0
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; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -86.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: -16.9% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -15.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 26th 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 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2023
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.