Penn State Softball Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320233449
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Bellevue, WA, USA
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,221
Expenses
$89,966
Assets
$57,495

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elizabeth M King (President)
  • Jodi A Maslo (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Elizabeth M King (President)
  • Jodi A Maslo (Vice-President)
  • Allen L Dissinger (Secretary)

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 purposes of the PSSBC shall be to: 1. Promote support and encourage interest in and attendance at Penn State Intercollegiate Softball games and other team activities. 2. Create sponsor and fund activities that enhance the Penn State Softball Student- Athlete experience in compliance with NCAA Big Ten Conference and Penn State University regulations which are not for personal profit. 3. Promote positive interaction between PSSBC members the Teams coaching staff and the Student-Athletes.

What it reported doing in 2025

Accomplishments: 1. Enabled the softball team to go to a team building event in Philadelphia 2. Established an endowment for the Softball Program 3. Provided funding for the Year-end Senior banquet for the Softball Program

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 79% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 1
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.2%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 0.6%; rating input score 1

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.6%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 37; 37th 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: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.2% of revenue deployed · 0.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $500 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.