Softball Austin

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450573384
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Phone
5125576464
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Baseball, Softball

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$68,965
Expenses
$90,579
Assets
$13,223
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Albert Rodriguez (Commissioner)
  • Rich Segal (Open Division Assistant Commissioner)
  • Catherine Eastmond (Women's Division Assistant Commissioner)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To offer the Central Texas gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered (GLBT) community and supporters the opportunity to enjoy recreational softball in a competitive environment.

What it reported doing in 2014

To offer the Central Texas gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered (GLBT) community, and the greater Austin community, the opportunity to experience and enjoy recreational softball in a competitive, inclusive and affirming environment. Softball Austin will organize, promote and support athletic, social, cultural or charitable activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 87% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 96
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.15; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -17.7% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $80K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • 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: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • 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.