Moe and Gene Johnson Robotics Boosters

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
882431852
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Manchaca, TX, USA
Phone
5125633525
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,402
Expenses
$8,941
Assets
$3,195
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Juliette Kroeger (Robotics Booster President)
  • Lisa Anderson (Robotics Booster Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Juliette Kroeger (Robotics Booster President)
  • Lisa Anderson (Robotics Booster Vice President)
  • Ann-Marie Kiser-Sloan (Robotics Boosters Treasurer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Robotics Booster club's purpose is to support the Moe and Gene Johnson High School Robotics Program for both FIRST and 4H/Ag Robotics. We raise funds to support the creation of robots that are used by the students to compete in their area, along with at State competitions.

What it reported doing in 2024

Created and funded a new 4H Robotics program at the High School to give students a different type of robot to compete with. These competitions are completely separate from our normal two competition teams that go through FIRST.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.9%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 72.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.1% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $6K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.