Harpeth Youth Athletic Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200819296
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2012, Form 990-N 2009
Location
Kingston Springs, TN, USA
Phone
6153781066
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$23,075
Expenses
$12,039
Assets
$21,884
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Bo Bradshaw (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Ronald Adcock (Director)
  • Lou Jenkins (Director)
  • Bo Bradshaw (Executive 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. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

HYAA continues to provides active support of young athletes in the South Cheatham County Communities of Kingston Springs and Pegram. Our program provides support for the construction and continued maintenance of youth athletic fields and building at Harpeth High School, Pegram Park and Kingston Springs Elementary School. This community has realized more than $500,000 in improvements and construction of new facilities that were provided through donations by HYAA.

What it reported doing in 2017

2017 was a building year to advance youth athletics for South Cheatham Youth Athletics. HYAA supported Harpeth HS Baseball, Harpeth HS Lacrosse and made contributions to Harpeth HS Boys Soccer. Donations to programs, as well as operating expense for maintenance and repairs to soccer field are listed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7.6%; rating input score 8
  • Program expense ratio: 14.7%; rating input score 15
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.44 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.82; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7.6% of revenue deployed · 14.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 42 of 42 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2013 to 2017
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 8/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.