Southwest Sports Wellness Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273809531
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chula Vista, CA, USA
Phone
6196911399
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Camps

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,482
Expenses
$64,367
Assets
$482,511
Liabilities
$1,069

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DR CHARLES A CAMARATA MD (President & CEO)

People named in this filing

  • DR CHARLES A CAMARATA MD (President & CEO)
  • MICHAEL STEIN (Treasurer)
  • DR MARK SELECKY MD (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

The mission of the southwest sports wellness foundation is to provide young athletes and medical professionals with access to programs and facilities which support and promote educational and athletic goals through physical, mental and emotional developmental training programs. The foundation is committed to instilling the value of hard work and perseverance through goal setting and to creating self-esteem through the achievement of those goals.the foundation provides young athletes with access to injury prevention, injury treatment resources and sports specific skill training, as well as providing educational opportunities and practical experience for health care professionals.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide student athletes with free injury clinics during the fall sports season, which generally runs from late august until early november. During the clinics a physician or physical therapist exams the student who might have been injured either during a game or practice. To accomplish these objectives during 2024, on a typical weekday an average of 3 students are seen by the volunteers and if necessary, the students receive x-rays or physical therapy and referred to a physician or physical therapist for follow-up exam and/or treatment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.9%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 54.4%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 64.5%; rating input score 65; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 21st 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: 18%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.5; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.9% of revenue deployed · 54.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.