Neenah Boys Lacrosse

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810817082
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Neenah, WI, USA
Phone
9208101773
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,035
Expenses
$64,763
Assets
$61,418

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATTHEW WERNER (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • KAYLIE SIECK (Director)
  • CHRISTOPHER PETERSON (Treasurer)
  • MATTHEW WERNER (Vice President)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of Neenah Lacrosse is:(a) To give Neenah Lacrosse Club gentlemen enrolled in the Neenah Joint School District the opportunity to play in the Bay Valley Lacrosse Association, a League within the Wisconsin Lacrosse Federation, and to promote lacrosse skill development to a competitive level (b) Organized exclusively for charitable, educational, religious or scientificpurposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal RevenueCode.

What it reported doing in 2025

Train over 100 children under the age of 14 how to play Lacrosse.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 46; 46th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -19.3% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $65K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.