Hamilton Junior Chargers Girls Basketball Club Ltd
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 992961939
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Menomonee Falls, WI, USA
- Phone
- 4153507229
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Development Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,224
- Expenses
- $11,031
- Assets
- $18,725
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KEVIN SANDIESON (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KEVIN SANDIESON (PRESIDENT)
- KRISTEN WARREN (VICE PRESIDE)
- CHRIS MAHAL (PLAYER/COACH)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The corporation exists to promote the sport of basketball in the hamilton school district in the city of sussex, county of waukesha, Wisconsin, by providing opportunities for female student athletes at all levels to participate in the sport of basketball. The corporation's primary focus is to address the physical, mental, emotional and social needs of each female student athlete by facilitating their participation in teamwork, competitive sport, disciplined skill development, and to help student athletes improve their skill development and knowledge of basketball while enjoying the competitive spirit of the game.
What it reported doing in 2024
League / tournament play: the girls attend practice 2 times a week learning the rules of basketball. Skills learned are then put into practice during both league play and tournaments held by other clubs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 86
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 63.4%; rating input score 63
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -396%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.7; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 63.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 1 filing year from 2024
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.