Florida Sports Charitable Foundation In
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201859549
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2011
- Forms available
- Form 990 2011
- Location
- Orlando, FL, USA
- Phone
- 4079565600
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $512,007
- Expenses
- $419,377
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
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
To foster national or international amateur sports competitions and to support and develop amateur athletes for such competitions.
What it reported doing in 2011
Florida sports charitable foundation sponsored ambassadors for aging day, which brought together elders, caregivers, and elder advocates from across the state to showcase the special contributions of older floridians.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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: 96
- Accountability: 42
- Sustainability: 40
- Growth: NotEnoughData
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: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.1%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 19.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $350K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $188K · 3 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 7 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: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.