Hastings Tiger Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261816860
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Hastings, NE, USA
Phone
4024617550
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$92,686
Expenses
$84,798
Assets
$101,591
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SONIA HUDSON (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN OLIVER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • RENEE THOMSEN (DIRECTOR)
  • SONIA HUDSON (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • MOLLY JOHNSEN (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote interest thoughout the community, in all hastings high school sports and academic extracurricular activity programs. To promote the theory and practice of the principles of good sportsmanship. To carry on projects agreeable to the membership, so that sports equipment can be purchased for the athlectic department of the school. To carry out any projects for the betterment of the booster club, athletic programs, or academic programs of hastings public schools.

What it reported doing in 2024

Organizing and managing various fundraising activities throughout the school year, and providing $72,065 of financial support to the extracirricular activities of the students at hastings public schools.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; rating input score 85

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.2; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $72K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.