The Skatepark Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330965889
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Vista, CA, USA
Phone
7604772479
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,683,343
Expenses
$7,032,936
Assets
$3,716,964
Liabilities
$4,370,497

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

Leadership & pay

31 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANTHONY HAWK (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE HAWK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BENJAMIN BASHEIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • BENJAMIN BASHEIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $233,397 total reported compensation
  • RACHEL WILLIAMS-FEUERSTEIN (CHIEF ADVANCEMENT OFFICER): $142,600 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDRA POOLE (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $140,956 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 skatepark project helps underserved communities create safe and inclusive public skateparks for youth.

What it reported doing in 2024

Skatepark building, maintenance & programming: is the organization's financial assistance program to communities to help support the building of free public skateparks, maintenance of existing skateparks, grants to support skatepark programming to encourage participation, and support the next generation of skaters. The board of directors meets to review grant applications and select recipients based on several criteria, including median household income, current access to skateparks, scope of proposed project, demonstrated work completed to fundraise and create community awareness, and other local data demonstrating the community is underserved. Revenue for the grant program is generated through sponsorship, donations, grants and auctions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 93
  • Sustainability: 9
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88%; rating input score 88; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -162.1%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.53; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.18; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 25 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $233K · 31 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.