Harbor Hit Dogs

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
813575105
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Fox Island, WA, USA
Phone
2532291264
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball

Reported finances

Revenue
$37,239
Expenses
$25,155
Assets
$15,177
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL STEVENS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PAMELA RUSH (DIRECTOR)
  • KRISTEN BONNICI (DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES BONNICI (DIRECTOR)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The harbor hit dogs was created to teach our youth life lessons within the fun and exciting game of baseball. Our players will learn many life skills by playing and competing, which will translate into positive skills they will use in all aspects of their lives. We are committed to teaching our players to learn and love the game, and to provide them with positive role models and quality instruction in a fun environment that will aid in the socialization process and empower players to become good, solid, productive citizens, future spouses, parents, and contributors to society. As a non-profit organization, we will be able to include players that would otherwise not be able to afford to play baseball.

What it reported doing in 2019

Provide specialized baseball skills training to all youth that participated in the harbor hit dogs'program. Included uniforms to identify the youth associated with the harbor hit dogs.

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 85% 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 revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 74%; rating input score 74

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.4%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 50% of revenue deployed · 74% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $19K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.