Los Angeles Volleyball Organization Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 320346990
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2016
- Forms available
- Form 990 2016, Form 990-N 2012
- Location
- West Hollywood, CA, USA
- Phone
- 3232759655
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $248,980
- Expenses
- $255,003
- Assets
- $43,113
- Liabilities
- $98,983
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- RAYMUNDO ROBLES (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- RAYMUNDO ROBLES (PRESIDENT)
- ERIC L GONZALES (TREASURER)
- BERNADETT SWARTHOUT (SECETARY)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of lavo is to promote
What it reported doing in 2016
We continue to offer competitive tournaments regionally to our players those cities include san diego, las vegas, palm springs in addition to los angeles.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 74% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
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 voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 83
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 12
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 94.1%; rating input score 94
- Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.17; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 2.3; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 94.1% of revenue deployed · 91.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $234K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 2/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.