Neuse River Basketball Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 473316708
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Selma, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9196347700
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,695
- Expenses
- $6,187
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- THOMAS A MURRAY III (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- THOMAS A MURRAY III (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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Assist student athletes in the development of positive life skills and self concepts that will serve them in their sport and in their educational and life endeavors; provide at-risk youth with a secure, positive environment where they can regain hope and belief in themselves and others, earn the trust of those around them, learn to respect themselves and others, and learn skills that lead to them becoming productive memebers of society free of the drugs, gangs, abuse, neglect and poverty that surrounds them while having the opportunity to play and succeed regardless of their skill level; open to the general public and will provide children between the ages of 5 and 18 the opportunity to learn and compete in recreational and athletic endeavors.
What it reported doing in 2014
Assist student athletes in the development of positive life skills and self concepts that will serve them in their sport and in their educational and life endeavors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- 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. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 95
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- 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: 7.6%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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 1/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.