Texas Stars Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273395382
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Cedar Park, TX, USA
Phone
2143875560
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$363,461
Expenses
$322,917
Assets
$475,947
Liabilities
$160,314

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL DELAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • OLIVIA HARRISON (FOUNDATION MANAGER): $57,590 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Texas stars foundation is a registered 501(c)(3) charitable organization dedicated to enhancing the community through various forms of support including financial contributions, gifts in kind and volunteerism. Formed in the summer of 2010, the Texas stars foundation is the official charity of the Texas stars hockey club. The foundation strives to utilize Texas stars players, families, staff, and ownership to enrich the greater central Texas area including honoring military families, partnering in youth engagement programs, and assisting those in need.

What it reported doing in 2024

Youth engagement: a. Floor hockey program: each season, we visit 10-15 elementary schools and bring along our players, ringo and staff to teach the basics of hockey. For each school we visit, we donate an entire set of hockey equipment for the school to keep and hopefully encourage teachers to include hockey in their curriculum. B. Captain's kids program: our captain's kids program is an annual program hosted by our captain, and board member, curtis mckenzie. Each game series, curtis invites out a local child or family usually facing a lifelong illness, a disability, or would be fi nancially unable to attend a game on their own. He creates an experience that includes a pre-game opportunity to high five the team as they skate out for warmups and does a special meet and greet with the child or family after the game, bringing along some of his teammates and ringo. He also purchases the tickets that include their dinner and a drink for the evening.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 75% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 62
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.9%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 42.8%; rating input score 43; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.2%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.47; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.9% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $243K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $58K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 18 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.