United States Rugby Football Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 046088348
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- San Diego, CA, USA
- Phone
- 6192330765
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $127,928
- Expenses
- $189,711
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
42 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN VIZARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
People named in this filing
- RAY GREEN (Director)
- ERIC SWANSON (Director)
- TERRY FLEENER (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. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote amateur rugby football throughout the u.s. By making grants to organizations and individuals supporting the usrff goals and by sponsoring programs that encourage the development of youth rugby.
What it reported doing in 2017
PROMOTE AND PUBLICIZE THE AMATEUR SPORT OF RUGBY IN THE U.S. BY MAKING GRANTS TO ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS SUPPORTING THE USRF GOALS AND BY SPONSORING PROGRAMS THAT ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUTH RUGBY. Ball Grants: We annually provide about 150-200 youth and high school rugby teams, school and community programs with size 4 and 5 rugby balls.Scholarships: Through our Kevin Higgins, Dick Donelli and Terry OReilly Scholarship programs we provide about $15,000 in annual scholarship money for deserving collegiate freshman rugby players.High Performance Grants: Through the Graham Downes Rugby Scholarship Program and High Performance Grants, we send 2-3 promising young rugby players to rugby academies in South Africa and New Zealand to improve their rugby skills and knowledge of the game.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 61
- Transparency & Controls: 63
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 11
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.8%; rating input score 77
- Program expense ratio: 51.7%; rating input score 52
- Fundraising efficiency: $2.2 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 15%; rating input score 15; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -48.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 76.8% of revenue deployed · 51.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $98K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 42 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
- 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 15/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.