Pleasantville Athletic Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833432581
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Pleasantville, IA, USA
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alumni Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$128,261
Expenses
$51,918
Assets
$132,731
Liabilities
$116,524

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Greg Cox (President)
  • Jessica Mesecher (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Greg Cox (President)
  • Chance Mesecher (Treasurer)
  • Jessica Mesecher (Vice 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation is organized exclusively for charitable purposes within the meaning of Section 501 (c ) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The primary purposes for the corporation is focused on enhancing the athletic opportunities offered to students of the Pleasantville Community School District by providing financial and volunteer support to district programs through: Event organization the supports the district athletic programs, Public awareness of student athlete achievements, Provision of scholarships and education efforts that recognize athlete participation and academics, Development and/or facilitation of action programs that encourage volunteerism and/or efforts regarding athletic program support, To provide contributions the charitable organization that support student athlete programs

What it reported doing in 2024

We provided wrestling room equipment that was requested for training purposes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 11
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 6.7%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 17

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 59.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.56; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -139.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 45.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 6.7% of revenue deployed · 16.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 8 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.