Engaged in Life Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274028036
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
7857667284
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Nonmonetary Support N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$928,395
Expenses
$809,853
Assets
$324,420
Liabilities
$9,342

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHAD EARWOOD (PRESIDENT)
  • RYAN VAN WINKLE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MATT DUNCAN (COACH): $109,922 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule ocreating opportunities for individuals to fulfill their destiny through education, character development and athletics. To facilitate the education process by providing additional resources to families desiring to enhance and round out their child's educational experience.

What it reported doing in 2025

Engaged athletics is a youth sports club that aims to create opportunities for student-athletes, regardless of income or background, to elevate their performance in sports and in life through a culture of character, class, discipline, and competition as a not-for-profit organization, we offer coaching, training, and financial support to a diverse group of over 200 participants who wish to compete at a higher level in baseball, volleyball, and basketball. In addition to team sports, engaged athletics currently operates a state-of-the-art indoor baseball training facility in riverside, Missouri.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.7%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.8%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.4; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.7% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $666K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.