Stow Soccer Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800026538
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2022
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Stow, MA, USA
Phone
7703662087
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$149
Expenses
$77,586
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mike Kirkland (President)

People named in this filing

  • Mike Kirkland (President)
  • Jeremy Edgerton (Treasurer)
  • Leah Vivirito (Secretary)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Stow Soccer Club Inc was a non-profit, volunteer-run organization located in Stow, MA. The organization offered fun and enriching soccer opportunities for kids from kindergarten through high school, as well as coaching development for parent volunteers. Seasons were offered every fall and spring with skills clinics at various times during the year. Following the conclusion of the Spring 2022 season, Stow Soccer Club merged into the Nashoba United Soccer Club, Inc. which provides the same youth soccer services for kids located in both Stow and Lancaster, MA.

What it reported doing in 2022

During this fiscal year the club paid all outstanding expenses from the Spring 2022 season and transferred its assets into Nashoba United Soccer Club, Inc., which began providing youth soccer services in Fall of 2022. Spring 2022 program expenses amounted to $27,586. Transfers to Nashoba United Soccer Club, Inc. amounted to $48,367.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 74% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 35.6%; rating input score 36

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -51,971.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.4% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 35.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $28K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2022
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.