Mid Valley Soccer Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930948164
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020
Location
Keizer, Oregon, US
Phone
5034090124
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$370,892
Expenses
$387,678
Assets
$52,936
Liabilities
$599

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN KINNETT (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID GONZALES (President)
  • WHITNEY BRUNER (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • MIGUEL CAMARENA (Executive Dir.): $40,000 total reported compensation
  • DANEY CAZAREZ (Director): $2,750 total reported compensation
  • RYAN KINNETT (PAST PRESIDENT): $750 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mid-Valley Soccer Club programs play an important role in promoting the physical, social, and emotional development of children. It is therefore essential for parents, coaches, and officials to encourage our youth athletes to embrace the values of good sportsmanship.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mid valley soccer club strives to develop the skills of players, and increase the lifelong enjoyment of the game. Coaches develop players in the technical, tactical, physical, and psychological components of the game, and also teach the importance of commitment, good sportsmanship, teamwork, respect for self and others, and an ability to learn from both winning and losing.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Program expense ratio: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.5%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 72.3% of revenue deployed · 69.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $268K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.