Kennedy High School Football Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330663241
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2017
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Cypress, CA, USA
Phone
7143003128
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,566
Expenses
$25,309
Assets
$20,533
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mark Plechot (President)
  • Angela James (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Mark Plechot (President)
  • Angela James (Vice President)
  • Melanie Griffin (Secretary)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Kennedy Football Booster club assists in improving our athletic training facilities and prepare our football players to become contributing members of our community. The Booster Club provides funds for the needs of the football program including athletic equipment, facilities, and uniform costs.

What it reported doing in 2017

Coaches Stipends this covers the expenses for coaches time at a nominal fee for an additional 10 coaches for the Varsity and JV football teams. These costs cover a balance from 2016 and a partial payment for 2017 stipends.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 80% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

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: -3%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $45K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2015 to 2017
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.