Johnny Bright Booster Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800442305
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2018
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Metairie, LA, USA
Phone
5048381037
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$39,412
Expenses
$48,073
Assets
$12,919
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEVIN DUKE (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE BOURG (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ELLEN AUSTIN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • IRA AUSTIN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • ARDLEY HANEMAN (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This organization exists solely to provide assistance, manually and financially, to johnny bright playground.

What it reported doing in 2018

The organization provides volunteers and additional fundraising efforts to help support and maintain johnny bright playground. These fundraising efforts are key to assisting parents and kids who are less fortunate and would otherwise not be able to afford to have their children participate at johnny bright. We provide uniforms, sports equipment, trophies, upgrades to the current facilities as they are needed, and countless hours of our time to make sure every kid has the same opportunity to succeed.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2011 to 2018
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.