Rockledge Soccer Club Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200132111
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2013
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Rockledge, FL, USA
Phone
3217253061
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$92,325
Expenses
$80,636
Assets
$30,632

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MATT BARBER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • MEAGHAN LUCAS (TREASURER)
  • KAI FRENCH (VICE PRESIDE)
  • JAN MCCALEB (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

The purpose and objective of the rockledge soccer club is to establish and maintain programs for the instructing, training, and participation in the sport of soccer for the young men and women in the city of rockledge and surrounding areas. The club is organized and operated exclusively for the pleasure, recreation, good health and other non-profit purposes of its participants.

What it reported doing in 2013

The purpose and objective of the rockledge soccer club is to establish and maintain programs for the instructing, training, and participation in the sport of soccer for the young men and women age 19 and under in the city of rockledge and surrounding areas. The club is organized and operated exclusively for the pleasure, recreation, good health and other non-profit purposes of its participants.

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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.3%; rating input score 87
  • 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: 12.7%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 25; 25th 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: -13.8% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2009 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.