Green Sports Alliance Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
473786430
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032785393
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Pollution Abatement and Control Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$122,769
Expenses
$106,587
Assets
$213,443
Liabilities
$3,195

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROGER MCCLENDON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROGER MCCLENDON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $218,805 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Gsaf will drive positive community, economic, and environmental change through strategic initiatives and partnerships in the sports and entertainment industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

The focus in 2024 was to invest the foundation's funds provided by key strategic partners like espn for the past 4 years into capacity building for implementation of dedicated resources to drive impact via the green sports alliance foundation. This was initiated in 2024 by developing a six month comprehensive strategy - structure - culture model by a third party to establish a go-forward execution plan for the green sports alliance foundation in 2025. The work yielded a phase i organizational structure, budget, and specific programming options to develop and explore in 2025. This also provided a recommended "how we work together" framework between the green sports alliance foundation and the green sports alliance trade organization to be further developed and tested in 2025. (see continuation on schedule o).the theory of change of leveraging the power of sports, entertainment, and culture to materially change the environmental and social conditions of the people in the communities in the us and positively influence communities around the world. Using metrics and meaningful benchmarks to measure the sports and entertainment ecosystem's progress that could drive significant infrastructure changes (civic engagement) as the focus of the green sports alliance foundation.green sports alliance foundation 2024 accomplishments:- completed phase i strategy - structure - culture model plan with assistance from external consultants and input from the foundation board- developed foundation organizational structure and budget recommendation for implementation in 2026 with dedicated resources- completed job search for foundation coo and strategy and vetted candidates for targeted hire date of jan 2025- identified three key areas of focus for 2025 for foundation (education, awareness campaigns, fundraising)- identified three key potential foundation strategic partnerships (ocean conservancy - protect where we play , muhammad ali compassion index, count us in, ay project 17)- completed activation as summit - estrella park clean-up and restoration.- completed c6 (green sports alliance) board approved 25% dedicated support of green sports alliance executive director to manage green sports alliance foundation - recruited and recommended new foundation board member for 2025

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 82% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.6%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 54.2%; rating input score 54; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 13.2%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 72.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.6% of revenue deployed · 62.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $67K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $219K · 7 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.