Pop Warner Little Scholars Inc Pacifica Tigersharks Pop Warner Football

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943223109
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2022
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Pacifica, CA, USA
Phone
6505802122
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,426
Expenses
$43,573
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MIKE BIANCALANA (PRESIDENT)
  • SEAN MARCHETTI (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MIKE BIANCALANA (PRESIDENT)
  • SEAN MARCHETTI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LORI BANKS (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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary purpose of this organization is to operate and maintain an organized youth football and cheerleading program to familiarize the players with the fundamentals and provide them an opportunity to play football and perform cheerleading in an adult supervised organized and safety-oriented manner. The organization strives to support all the youth of pacifica participating in sports. Our objective is to make the program available to as many youth as possible while teaching them good sportsmanship, fair play and a love for sports. The objective will be reached by providing supervised competitive athletic games. The officers and coaches shall bear in mind that the attainment of exceptional athletic skill or the winning of games is secondary and the molding of future good citizens is of prime importance.

What it reported doing in 2022

This is the amount used to purchase fireworks for resale in fundraising event. Funds were used to cover operating expenses.

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
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -150%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $88K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 5 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.