Lemont Athletic Association Nfp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452787126
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Lemont, IL, USA
Phone
7737588583
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Basketball

Reported finances

Revenue
$95,825
Expenses
$85,072
Assets
$37,260
Liabilities
$6,120

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • EUGENE CUTTITTA (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MIA CUTTITTA (BOARD MEMBER)
  • TOM MARKUN (BOARD MEMBER)
  • SHAWN CARMODY (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The lemont athletic association, nfp promotes youth athletic participation in basketball in the lemont area and nearby communities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Lemont athletic association nfp is a youth boys and girls basketball organization for 3rd to 8th grade students. The league focuses on training and developing basketball skills and fundementals through training and games against other programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 26.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.