Nyfl Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271781329
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Football

Reported finances

Revenue
$247,287
Expenses
$247,451
Assets
$89,502
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KYLE HENRIKSEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KYLE HENRIKSEN (PRESIDENT): $45,133 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To foster sportsmanship and team competition for area youth.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide area youth with a sports league to develop team spirit and sportsmanship.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 34
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.7%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 69.1%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.7% of revenue deployed · 69.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $171K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.