Mid Valley Youth Baseball

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954815568
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Encino, CA, USA
Phone
8187857529
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$224,001
Expenses
$229,071
Assets
$9,894
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELSY MARUAYAMA (President)
  • GEORGE ANDRADE (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • KELSY MARUAYAMA (President)
  • GEORGE ANDRADE (Vice President)
  • ARMANDO ALFARO (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. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The objective of this league shall be to develop in the minds of the participating children those ideals conducive to good sportsmanship and positive self-esteem. The supervisors responsible for the welfare of their players shall place secondary the winning of games or the attainment of exceptional athletic skill. The path for molding this community's future adults shall be through patience, understanding, and compassion.

What it reported doing in 2015

Mid valley baseball was founded in 1970 with the goal ofteaching the children of our community the importance ofteamwork, dedication, and good citizenship to achievetheir career and life's goals. Comprised entirely of volunteer adults, mid valley has, through proper guidance and model leadership, beendedicated to providing quality activities for the youth of ourcommunity. Through our pony baseball programs, we teach the importanceof teamwork, dedication, and good citizenship, tools that are vital tosucceed in today's competitive and challenging environment. Ourmentoring coaches and other volunteers instill the importance ofapplying one's own natural gifts to achieve the maximum in positiveresults.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 90% 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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $199K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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.

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: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.