Moosic Little League
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 233051697
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Scranton, PA, USA
- Rating
- 47
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $59,494
- Expenses
- $58,596
- Assets
- $22,854
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
2 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Yarem (President)
People named in this filing
- John Yarem (President)
- Matthew Felter (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
Through proper guidance and exemplary leadership the Moosic Little League assists children in developing the qualities of citizenship discipline teamwork and physical well-being. By espousing the virtues of character courage and loyalty the Moosic Little League Baseball is designed to develop superior citizens rather than superior athletes.
What it reported doing in 2024
Through volunteer efforts we repurposed the infield of our farm field at cost of sod and usage of machinery
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 18
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 17.6%; rating input score 18
- Program expense ratio: 17.9%; rating input score 18
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 17.6% of revenue deployed · 17.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $10K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2009 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 18/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.