Upper Arlington Boys Soccer Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 462529696
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Upper Arlington, OH, USA
- Phone
- 6145956767
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $74,256
- Expenses
- $72,367
- Assets
- $27,124
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Karen Hickey (Vice President)
- Chad Thompson (President)
People named in this filing
- Annie Lane (Concessions)
- Karen Hickey (Vice President)
- Chad Thompson (President)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Association will foster the Upper Arlington High School boys' soccer program, including, but not limited to: (i) supporting and developing boy soccer players; (ii) providing equipment, uniforms, coaching, and team bonding activities; (iii) supporting the coaches as requested; (iv) directing and conducting promotional and fundraising activities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Uniforms, training shirts, backpacks, etc. for boys in the high school soccer program.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 96
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 37
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 95.2%; rating input score 95
- Program expense ratio: 97.7%; rating input score 98
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 34.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -13.2% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 95.2% of revenue deployed · 97.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 9 filed program accomplishments · $71K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.