Littleton Girls Basketball Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262573668
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Littleton, CO, USA
Phone
3038611978
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$127
Expenses
$631
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEBBIE PROLOW (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DEBBIE PROLOW (PRESIDENT)
  • JANET LINDGREN (TREASURER)
  • DIANA GRAHAM (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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Littleton girls basketball booster club has been created in order to be a booster club for littleton high school girls' basketball teams. The teams include the girls' freshman, sophomore, junior varsity, and varsity basketball teams. The school is a public school located in littleton, co. The club aims to promote basketball in high school aged-girls and to provide them with moral and financial support.

What it reported doing in 2013

The club will fundraise in order to provide financial assistance to the teams when the school cannot cover the costs of certain items, including uniforms, equipment and travel costs to tournaments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 20.1%; rating input score 20

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -396.9%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -44.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -48.8% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -54.8% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 20.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $127 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.