Squash and Education Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
204597358
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6462180456
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Amateur Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,178,696
Expenses
$4,420,199
Assets
$24,304,999
Liabilities
$704,230

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM WYANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIM WYANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $298,707 total reported compensation
  • SARAH MCCONNELL (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $182,222 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT GIBRALTER (DIRECTOR OF GROWTH): $143,885 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

We strive to achieve our mission in three main ways: - growth: launch squash and education programs in new cities - program quality: ensure the highest quality programming among our members by identifying and sharing best practices, tracking data, evaluating programs, developing leaders, and creating opportunities to exchange ideas and engage in professional development - student & alumni opportunities: organize educational programs, tournaments, and squash camps for squash students to promote learning, health, integrity, and the pursuit of excellence

What it reported doing in 2024

SEA launches and leads youth programs that combine squash, academics, mentoring, travel, college support and career readiness initiatives for students enrolled in our member programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 81% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. 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: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.5%; rating input score 35
  • Program expense ratio: 80.2%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 82.4%; rating input score 82; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 31%; rating input score 31; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Missing
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 60.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.5; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.5% of revenue deployed · 80.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 26 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $299K · 30 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $5.7M reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 36 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 14 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.