The Cannonball Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205078024
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Millis, MA, USA
Phone
9782571702
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$35,593
Expenses
$37,101
Assets
$16,920

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL SCHELL (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • RICHARD CONNOLLY (Director)
  • MAUREEN CORCORAN (Director)
  • THOMAS CORCORAN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Cannonball Foundation improves higher education outcomes and builds leadership capacity through baseball. Qualified families and coaches engage regardless of their ability to pay. The Cannonball Foundation conducts leadership programs with a high caliber, experienced faculty connected through a national network of partners to help our youth achieve their academic and athletic goals.

What it reported doing in 2015

Cannonball coaching fellowship. Please refer to statement in schedule "o".

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.5%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 46.5%; rating input score 46

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.4% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 55.8% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.5% of revenue deployed · 46.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $17K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.