Garden Grove Bulldog Football Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330951894
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Garden Grove, CA, USA
Phone
7143342911
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$123,035
Expenses
$122,474
Assets
$-1,601
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM GOODE (PRESIDENT)
  • MATT TRACY (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • TOM GOODE (PRESIDENT)
  • MATT TRACY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • GARY FISHER (2ND VICE)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To offer sport programs to youth

What it reported doing in 2017

Pop warner football team organized to implant ideals of good sportsmanship, honesty, loyalty and courage in the youths residing in the community & provide supervised, safety oriented football and cheerleading programs. Approximately 350 youths participate.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 77% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 6
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.7%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 7th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0.01; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.7% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $116K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • 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.