Sanderson High School Theatre Booster Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261339165
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Raleigh, NC, USA
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,926
Expenses
$72,960
Assets
$32,050

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • April Alston (Co-President)
  • Jill Wiencek (Co-President)

People named in this filing

  • April Alston (Co-President)
  • Jill Wiencek (Co-President)
  • Tara Bennett (Treasurer)

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

The primary exempt purpose of Sanderson High School Theatre Booster Club is to raise money and support the student theatre program at Sanderson High School.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization also supported the general operations of the Sanderson High School theatre program including classroom expenses performances for in-school theatre classes a year-end awards ceremony for participating students equipment purchases senior scholarships and general administrative expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • 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: 19.8%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 29; 29th 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: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $73K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.