Poway Sports Management

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330823221
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Poway, CA, USA
Phone
8584863307
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Reported finances

Revenue
$11
Expenses
$8
Assets
$13,115

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CHARLES H JACKSON (PRES/DIRECTOR)
  • MICHAEL C JACKSON (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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To support charitable organizations (qualified as described in sections 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) of the code) which: (1) promote, foster, or conduct national or international amateur volleyball competition; and/or (2) support, train, and develop amateur athletes for national or international volleyball competition. The organization may also support other amateur sports in addition to volleyball.

What it reported doing in 2013

Supported charitable organizations (qualified as described in sections 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) of the code) which: (1) promote, foster, or conduct national or international amateur sports; and/or (2) support, train, and develop amateur athletes for national or international competition through cash and noncash donations.

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

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: 10
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.1%; rating input score 9
  • Program expense ratio: 12.5%; rating input score 12

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.3%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1,639.38; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -80.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -31.7% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.1% of revenue deployed · 12.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 9/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.