George K Bowling Community Park Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
610945479
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Edmonton, KY, USA
Phone
2704327204
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$542,476
Expenses
$667,128
Assets
$1,198,108
Liabilities
$3,562

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KIM SMITH (PRESIDENT)
  • LISA BOSWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • HOLLY COLEMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA BOSWELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $72,190 total reported compensation
  • HOLLY COLEMAN (VICE PRESIDENT): $46,088 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

George k. Bowling community park, inc. Was incorporated under the laws of Kentucky as a not-for-profit corporation on october 20, 1978 for the charitable purpose of providing a recreational outlet for approximately 14,700 citizens in and around metcalfe county, Kentucky, an area where 24% live at or below the poverty level.citizens can participate in activities such as basketball, tennis, soccer, and softball, among others. The community center is a multi-purpose facility available to residents of metcalfe county for events such as public meetings, social funtions, receptions, etc.

What it reported doing in 2025

The fitness center offers a place for residents to improve physical fitness with emphasis on the cardiovascular system. Fitness center fees are contingent upon the income of individuals interested, or members can participate in a work exchange program for use of the center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 34.9%; rating input score 35; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 18th 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: -23%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.8; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $479K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $72K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.