Highland Park Tennis Booster Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 832521191
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2025
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Recreational l Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $73,350
- Expenses
- $45,706
- Assets
- $54,594
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Karen Stroup (President)
- Jacque Marvin (President Elect)
People named in this filing
- Karen Stroup (President)
- Jacque Marvin (President Elect)
- Amy Benson (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 mission of the Highland Park Tennis Booster Club is to i firuther the educational purposes of the Highland Park Independent School District and its students through support of the Highland Park High School Tennis Team ii promote positive environment for the Teams educational and athletic growth; iii promote positive relationships between those partens students and staff that are affiliated with the Team and iv do all things necessary for and incidental to the accomplishment of the purposes and goals of the Corporation.
What it reported doing in 2025
Support the Highland Park Tennis Team - players and coaches - to provide community support and athletic development
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.
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: 62
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
- Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 37.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.19; rating input score 52; 52nd 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: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.