Irving Gymnastics Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752493554
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Irving, TX, USA
Phone
8175019590
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$392,902
Expenses
$428,249
Assets
$218,320
Liabilities
$57,253

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SHELLY PATRICK (Manager): $46,875 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Irving gymnastic association offers safe_and unique environment where children of all ages are given the opportunity to succeed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.7%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $188.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.9%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.7% of revenue deployed · 88.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $428K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2015 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.