Excel Youth Sports Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262912777
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Buckeye, AZ, USA
Phone
6235659529
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$382,276
Expenses
$374,317
Assets
$9,536
Liabilities
$188

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide communities with cost effective youth sports programs

What it reported doing in 2011

Excel provided sports clinics throughout the year, taught athletes fundamental skills, invited ex-professional players to give speeches, organized recreational leagues, and scheduled weekly practices and games during the season.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 70.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 168% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $362K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.