Exchange Club of Sugar Land- Charitable Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760457525
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022
- Location
- Stafford, TX, USA
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Service Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $179,979
- Expenses
- $202,512
- Assets
- $166,091
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Camille Edwards (President)
- Juli Fournier (President Elect)
- Thad Olive (Immediate Past President)
People named in this filing
- Camille Edwards (President)
- Juli Fournier (President Elect)
- Thad Olive (Immediate Past 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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Exchange is a group of men and women working to make America a better place to live through one national project -the prevention of child abuse -and other community service projects.
What it reported doing in 2024
United States flags will fly in a solemn formation at the University of Houston Sugar Land Campus near the Brazos River during November. This stirring display of flags will bring the community together in a patriotic tribute to honor our heroes. Each U.S. flag represents an individual and tells a story. Flags may be sponsored to honor individuals currently serving in our military veterans fallen servicemen and women first responders educators coaches clergy family members coworkers and other heroes in our lives. This unique event is the perfect opportunity for all of us to remember and honor our many heroes
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 68% 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 39
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 45.8%; rating input score 46
- Program expense ratio: 40.7%; rating input score 41
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 54.4%; rating input score 54; 43rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -12.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -16.3% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 45.8% of revenue deployed · 40.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $82K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 33 of 36 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.