Lake Geneva Youth Basketball

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680571067
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Lake Geneva, WI, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Expenses
$5,166
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN NILES (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAN NILES (PRESIDENT)
  • DAN DRAPER (SECRETARY)
  • JO NILES (DIRECTOR)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote and advance the sport of basketball to youth between the ages of 8 and 18 years old who live in the district and will be attending high school at badger high school in lake geneva, Wisconsin; provide scholarships and funds for individuals graduating from badger high school and who are interested in pursuing additional educational opportunities to develop or enhance their skill or knowledge in playing, coaching or pursuing a career involving the sport of basketball; provide funds and instruction to individuals interested in coaching teams participating in sponsored or endorsed by lake geneva youth basketball association inc.; provide instruction to the public on youth basketball programs and how it is useful to the individual and beneficial to the community.

What it reported doing in 2014

To promote and advance the sport of basketball to youth between the ages of 8 and 18 years.

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
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -68.6% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -81.1% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -56.7% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 3 of 3 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.