Seneca High School Football 12Th Man Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550881197
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Tabernacle, NJ, USA
Phone
0000000000
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$96,321
Expenses
$77,677
Assets
$35,113
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alan Levy (President)
  • Lee Rosenberg (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Alan Levy (President)
  • Lee Rosenberg (Vice President)
  • Kristina Gerber (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 purpose of the Seneca Football 12th Man Club is to promote the welfare of our children at home in our schools and in the community To enhance and support the athletic experience at Seneca High School and beyond To promote open communication between the football program at Seneca High School players and family by encouraging players coaches parents and community involvement To improve the environment at Seneca High School through volunteer and financial support

What it reported doing in 2025

0

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 74% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.4%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.45; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.