United States Bowling Congress
Legal name: United States Bowling Congress Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201224922
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Arlington, TX, USA
- Phone
- 8005142695
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports Competitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $49,809,774
- Expenses
- $52,950,975
- Assets
- $157,692,071
- Liabilities
- $135,263,680
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DENNIS HACKER (PRESIDENT)
- MIKE CANNINGTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CHAD MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- JASON OVERSTREET (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- CHAD MURPHY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $512,318 total reported compensation
- JASON OVERSTREET (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $250,557 total reported compensation
- ROBERT STOKES (MANAGING IT DIRECTOR): $231,597 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide governance, support, and opportunities for bowlers of all ages and skill levels, promoting the sport of bowling through sanctioned events, education, and athlete development.
What it reported doing in 2024
In order to help youth bowlers achieve their educational goals and reach their full potential, usbc will provide effective and convenient access, safekeeping and prudent management of all scholarship funds until distributed to youth bowlers in compliance with all required regulations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 68
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 80.3%; rating input score 80
- Program expense ratio: 72.4%; rating input score 72
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; 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: 70.6%; rating input score 71; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.98; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 80.3% of revenue deployed · 72.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $38.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $512K · 29 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.4M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 39 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.