Folsom Tigersharks Swim Team

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271997030
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Folsom, CA, USA
Phone
9165057300
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Swimming & Other Water Recreation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$131,430
Expenses
$132,344
Assets
$2,927
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Camarillo (President)
  • Erik Neese (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • John Camarillo (President)
  • Erik Neese (Vice President)
  • Rick Xiong (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Folsom Tigershark Swim Team provides an enjoyable swimming experience for swimmers of all ages and abilities and provides a positive teaching and challenging training environment where swimmers can develop self-esteem, sportsmanship, pride and friendship through individual and team achievement.

What it reported doing in 2014

Folsom Tigershark Swim Team provides an enjoyable swimming experience for swimmers of all ages and abilities and provides a positive teaching and challenging training environment where swimmers can develop self-esteem, sportsmanship, pride and friendship through individual and team achievement. The team provides this service for more than 200 families in the Folsom CA area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.7%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.4%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -120% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -40% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.