Soccer for Life

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470964248
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Lafayette, CO, USA
Phone
3034438877
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$405,823
Expenses
$112,020
Assets
$458,770
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DON ALTMAN (DIRECTOR)
  • JENNIFER FOX (DIRECTOR)
  • BEN KABILI (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Soccer for life is an independent, nonprofit organization 501(c)(3) dedicated to the development of youth soccer in boulder county. The club will introduce children to the game of soccer, the largest, and one of the most exciting sports worldwide. Utilizing safe and valuable learning experiences we will create an environment where boulder county soccer players have the opportunity to fulfill their utmost potential, not only as players, but as individuals as well. Our qualified, experienced, and educated coaching staff will run fun, yet well-structured practice sessions. We will provide the best training and support available to players, coaches, and parents. Bcsc measures success by accomplishing our objectives. Our objectives are to promote and develop self-confidence, sportsmanship, and appropriate attitudes towards both winning and losing. We will ensure these objectives are achieved through a family friendly environment that everyone can enjoy for a lifetime.

What it reported doing in 2024

Soccer for life has one main program service. This is our youth soccer teams. We have teams from age 9 to 18 years old that compete against other youth soccer clubs in Colorado. We offer an experience for youth soccer that is different than any other club in Colorado. We are different because at all levels (recreational or competitive) we provide our teams with an experienced paid coach. Other clubs in Colorado use volunteer coaches for their recreational teams. We feel this is not the proper way to teach youth soccer. Although this causes our expenses to be higher than other clubs, it is a great benefit that sets us apart from other clubs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.6%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 19.8%; rating input score 20; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 72.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.1; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $112K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 28/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.