Georgia Sting

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841638288
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Appling, GA, USA
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports Competitions

Reported finances

Revenue
$41,767
Expenses
$44,983
Assets
$-2,342
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM S JACKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN M BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • WILLIAM S JACKSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JOHN M BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROBIN JACKSON (SECYTREAS)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To sponsor girls basketball.

What it reported doing in 2016

Had over 70 girls participating in aau basketball tournaments. Purchased uniforms and paid other expenses for the teams out of money received from player fees paid for by parents and from fundraising events in june and september.the purpose of the organization is to offer amatuer sports programs through a volunteer base for all people; to promote good sportsmanship and good citizenship; to conduct programs that provide for, enhance and strengthen participation and competition for amatuer athletes; to work with other sports organizations to benefit amatuer athletes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.8%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: -0.05; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.8% of revenue deployed · 80.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.