Prodigy Athletes Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822064717
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Dana Point, CA, USA
Phone
9513759513
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$225,460
Expenses
$230,815
Assets
$13,782
Liabilities
$19,137

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEALI'I TROY KUKAHIKO LAU (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEALI'I TROY KUKAHIKO LAU (President): $125,506 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization provides after school athletic and educational programs to at-risk youth, and provides scholarships to student athletes who lack parental support and who are entering college, so that these young people are motivated and able to continue their education while combating socioeconomic and other deterioration of their communities, and juvenile delinquency.

What it reported doing in 2017

Provision of after school academic tutoring to underachieving at-risk youth athletes. Student athletes who are underachieving academically are referred to the foundation by schools and athletic organizations to receive academic tutoring. Children who grow up in at-risk environments are often unable to access the same educational resources as children raised in other circumstances for a number of reasons. They may also not be encouraged to do well in school at home and may find no assistance with schoolwork there. Academic underachievement can lead to feelings of low morale and high dropout rates which in turn lead to a lack of opportunities in adult life. The foundation provides after school tutoring in the subject area(s) in which the student is having difficulty in order to help the student improve his/her academic performance. The student also receives encouragement to remain in school in school and to graduate, and may participate in the foundation's athletic programs where appropriate. As a part of the foundation's tutoring program, it is conducting research into the significant academic difficulties experienced by a particular segment of the student demographic that it serves. The purpose of this research is to help to develop a means by which to improve the academic services provided to this segment by the foundation. During the year 2017, $62,753 of the $116,295 spent on the tutoring program was spent on research.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.6%; rating input score 89; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.39; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 54.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.4% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $222K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.