Sugar Land Girls Softball Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 760410555
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Sugar Land, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2814941085
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Youth Centers, Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $533,671
- Expenses
- $535,855
- Assets
- $116,210
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KELLI JACOBY (PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN BENEFIEL (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KELLI JACOBY (PRESIDENT)
- BRIAN BENEFIEL (EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT)
- ROBERT PARKER (TREASURER)
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
Our mission as an association is to provide supervised competitive fastpitch softball programs in order to furnish the girls of our community with a place to learn good sportsmanship, honesty, foster freindships, loyalty, courage and reverence so that they will be well adjusted, stronger and happier girls who will grow to be good, clean healthy and trustworthy women. All persons engaged in the activities of the slgsa will bear in mind that the attainment of athletic skills or the winning of games is secondary, and that the molding of future women is of primary importance.
What it reported doing in 2024
Promotion of softball skills and development of 700 youth of fort bend county and sugar land, Texas through supervised competitive sporting events.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 81
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $516K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.