Granbury HS Volleyball Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
453786192
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Granbury, TX, USA
Phone
3253158033
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$93,131
Expenses
$66,009
Assets
$77,377
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michelle Noe (President)
  • Kacey Huggins (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Michelle Noe (President)
  • Natalie Kendrick (Treasurer)
  • Kacey Huggins (Vice President)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Granbury HS Volleyball Booster Club is organized to support the athletes, parents, coaches, and administrative staff of The Granbury High School Volleyball program by raising funds, conducting events, and recruiting volunteers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Donation to School

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 29
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 25.4%; rating input score 25
  • Program expense ratio: 35.8%; rating input score 36

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -24.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 25.4% of revenue deployed · 35.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $24K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.