Parents for Aliso Niguel Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800164100
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA, USA
Phone
9492356000
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights, Social Action, Advocacy N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$49,349
Expenses
$51,718
Assets
$10,646

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amanda Regan (President)

People named in this filing

  • Craig Dibley (Member at Large)
  • Amanda Regan (President)
  • Tisia Joseph (VP/DIR/SECY)

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 Parents for Aliso Niguel organization's sole purpose is to benefit the students, student organizations, booster clubs, activities, departments and facilities at Aliso Niguel High School. Parents for Aliso Niguel's goal is to raise funds through various community organized events, corporate and individual sponsorships and direct donations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Distributions to student organizations and booster clubs, including sports and pep squads, theater, dance and other groups to enhance the educational opportunities for the students at Aliso Niguel High School.

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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.1%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 92.7%; rating input score 93

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.8%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 19; 19th 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: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.1% of revenue deployed · 92.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $48K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.