Harrison High School Volleyball Booster Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 020743125
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Kennesaw, GA, USA
- Phone
- 0000000000
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $97,103
- Expenses
- $71,793
- Assets
- $41,937
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Megan Musca (President)
- Cynthia Cooley (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Megan Musca (President)
- Cynthia Cooley (Vice President)
- Todd Urquhart (Co-Treasurer)
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
The CLUBs purpose shall be to support the Harrison High School Volleyball Program in the following ways A Promote studentparent involvement and support of the team B Coordinate all supporting team activities C Encourage attendance at volleyball games and related functions D Provide services facilities and equipment that are not provided for by the school or county E Ensure recognition for the Volleyball Program and its athletes F Increase fan enjoyment and participation at volleyball events
What it reported doing in 2025
Travel to games and tournaments awards for graduating seniors and other athletes clinics and trainings for coaches event entry fees scholarships team meals website maintenance facility rental
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 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
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: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50.7%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 68.6%; rating input score 69
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 26.1%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 35; 35th 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: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 50.7% of revenue deployed · 68.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $49K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.