Rams Juniors Volleyball Booster Clu
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 934516634
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Altoona, IA, USA
- Rating
- 89
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $68,686
- Expenses
- $83,472
- Assets
- $70,947
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
People named in this filing
- JIM SIXTA (COACH)
- AMANDA NORLIN (OFFICER)
- BRANDY HARMISON (OFFICER)
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
To bring together the southeast polk district's athletes to build a tradition of excellence. Rams juniors emphasizes the importance of leadership, development of individual skills, team participation, and a positive and fun atmosphere for southeast polk district student athletes. As an organization, we are committed to making the volleyball program a success not just on the court, but also off. We expect our athletes to be active role models in the community, classroom, and on the court.
What it reported doing in 2025
Leadership, development of individual skills, team participation, and a positive and fun atmosphere for southeast polk district student athletes
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 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 29
- Growth: 100
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: -21.5%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.85; rating input score 43; 43rd 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: 56% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 154% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $83K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.