First Point Volleyball Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814642035
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3174188967
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $378,494
- Expenses
- $618,986
- Assets
- $105,506
- Liabilities
- $307,680
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Stephen Wade Garard (President & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- Stephen Wade Garard (President & CEO): $93,362 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Volleyball people tend to be good people. Competitive volleyball players seem to develop into productive citizens, leaders and mentors. And the united states of america needs more leaders and more mentors. The overarching goal of first point volleyball foundation is to create more opportunities for boys and men to play competitive volleyball. One of the key areas of the initiative is to expand opportunities for men to play on collegiate teams and to expand the amount of di and dii teams and di and dii scholarship opportunities. Ultimately, nothing is more important than nurturing the spirit and values of the young people of this country. Thank you for helping us do this on and near the volleyball court!
What it reported doing in 2024
Grow the game and sustaining grant program provides grant funding to colleges and universities to support the start of new men's volleyball programs at the NCAA, NAIA, and the junior college levels. Funds can be used for educational expenses that support the institution's support of intercollegiate expenses including scholarships, etc.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 65
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 77
- Sustainability: 8
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.9%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
- Fundraising efficiency: $1.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 79.5%; rating input score 80; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95.8%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -63.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.92; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -12.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.9% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 23 of 24 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $318K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 24 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.