Jbhs Cheer Booster Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 455303526
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5123739592
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,730
- Expenses
- $39,709
- Assets
- $80,385
- Liabilities
- $41,312
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kamisha York (President)
- Adria Wright (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Kamisha York (President)
- Adria Wright (Vice President)
- Sheila Benavides (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The JBHS Cheer Booster Club (CBC) is designed to support the sport of cheer at James Bowie High School (JBHS). The CBC is run by an elected Board of six Directors, and volunteers for seven Committees who manage fundraising activities, organize social events, create program memorabilia, coordinate scholarship evaluations, and arrange for meals at away games and other events. The funds raised go to expenses such as UCA summer training camp, competitions, transportation, team social events, scholarships, meals, photography, and end-of-year memory books. The CBC relies on all cheer program parents to become active members of the CBC to help make each year successful for our student athletes.
What it reported doing in 2024
JBHS Cheer Booster Club ("JCBC") supports the James Bowie High School cheerleaders through fundraising and volunteering. JCBC funds are used to provide team meals, supplies for camps and clinics, team social events, senior scholarships, and competition travel fees.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 88% of its reported program spending for member benefits.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.7%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 62.1%; rating input score 62
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38.7%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.02; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -13.8% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 38.9% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.7% of revenue deployed · 62.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $25K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- 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.
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 50/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.