San Francisco Bowl Game Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
300047874
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Danville, CA, USA
Phone
6502083207
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Football

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,196,385
Expenses
$4,426,766
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN OPPELT (ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY CAVALLI (MEMBER AND EXECUTIVE DIREC): $228,161 total reported compensation
  • RYAN OPPELT (ASST. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $129,750 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To host an annual college football post-season game in the city and county of san francisco, California.

What it reported doing in 2015

The san francisco bowl game association hosted and produced the foster farms bowl, an annual college football post-season bowl game played in santa clara, and a number of game-week activities held in san francisco. The 2015 foster farms bowl featured the university of Nebraska and university of California, los angeles (ucla). The game drew a crowd of 33,527 to levi's stadium and was televised nationally on espn. The game has become a major economic event for the city of san francisco and generated roughly $10 million for the local hospitality industry in 2015, according to san francisco travel estimates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.7%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 62.5%; rating input score 62; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.7% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $228K · 17 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.