Jam on It Basketball Academy Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860887569
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2021
Forms available
Form 990 2021, Form 990-T 2021
Location
Sparks, NV, USA
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,688,082
Expenses
$1,473,710
Assets
$1,368,158
Liabilities
$191,131

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT WILLIMS JR (CEO)
  • CLINT WELCH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MARY MAULTSBY (TRUSTEE)
  • JOE GURA (TRUSTEE)
  • MICHAEL WILLIAMS (TRUSTEE)

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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of jam on it basketball academy, inc., is to build positive self worth, promote a sense of accomplishment by engaging childrenn in fun, competitive play, and to foster the belief that trying ones best is as important in sports as it is in life.

What it reported doing in 2021

Jam on it has sponsored over 6,300 underprivilileged youth in our programs, which include basketball lessons, camps and clinics, and traveling teams. Jam on it has sponsored and helped subsidize over 800 visiting teams to participate in our local and national tournaments. These tournaments range from Nevada to California to Utah to Hawaii.jam on it has sponsored and helped subsidize over 250 youth traveling to regional and national tournaments, including transportation and lodging.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 41
  • Sustainability: 69
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.8%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 94.4%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.4 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 7th 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: 45.2%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.8% of revenue deployed · 94.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2021
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.