Indiana University Rugby Advisory Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
994876834
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Bloomington, IN, USA
Phone
8123204584
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,074,427
Expenses
$12,197
Assets
$4,373,466
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHNNY BRYANT (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JOHNNY BRYANT (PRESIDENT)
  • THOMAS MCDAVID (SECRETARY)
  • BRIAN WILLIAMS (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support the development and advancement of the Indiana university men's rugby club by providing support for coaching, training, equipment, etc., enabling the club to consistently compete against the nation's leading collegiate programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization completed its first full year of operations in accordance with its three year strategic plan of building an endowment corpus that will sustain the operations of the Indiana university mens rugby club.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 98
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.6%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 99.7%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 358.57; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $12K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.