King City High School FFA Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
465582685
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
King City, CA, USA
Phone
8313855461
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,888
Expenses
$45,709
Assets
$59,596

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Miguel Lomeli (President)
  • Josh Lindeman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Miguel Lomeli (President)
  • Josh Lindeman (Vice President)
  • Barbara Tongson (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The King City High School FFA Booster Club has been organized to provide financial support and other opportunities to King City High School FFA participants by assisting the youth in developing the characteristics of citizenship, respect, discipline, teamwork, sportsmanship, and physical and mental well-being through the Future Farmers of America program with competition at the local and state levels.

What it reported doing in 2025

King City High School FFA Booster Club provides financial and other support to all King City High School students wishing to participate in the AG FFA program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Assets have declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 81.1%; rating input score 81

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 81.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $37K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.