Perry Band Boosters of Stark County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261838735
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Canton, OH, USA
Phone
3309044391
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,516
Expenses
$60,414
Assets
$152,466
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RACHAEL FLEISCHAKER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREA FERKO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIONA GRAFE (VICE PRESIDENT FUNDRAISING)

People named in this filing

  • RACHAEL FLEISCHAKER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANDREA FERKO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRIONA GRAFE (VICE PRESIDENT FUNDRAISING)

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

This corporation is formed as a non-profit entity the primary purpose of which is to benefit bands of perry local schools of stark county, Ohio. Proceeds generated will be used for the participants in the band program, including, but not limited to purchase of instruments and uniforms and to pay expenses associated with competition and travel thereto.

What it reported doing in 2025

To foster and maintain an enthusiastic and supporting interest in the various phases of the instrumental music program of the perry local schools, and to encourage the parents of the students participating to give these programs their firm support. To lend all possible support, both moral and financial, to the general and specific needs of the instrumental music program, and to build and maintain an organization which will promote the general activities of the instrumental music program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.2%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.52; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.1% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.3% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $59K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.