USA Volleyball
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 800551967
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2009
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO, US
- Phone
- (719) 228-6800
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $46,479,758
- Expenses
- $41,946,074
- Assets
- $62,087,135
- Liabilities
- $24,421,982
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
31 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JAMIE DAVIS (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
- JOHN SPERAW (PRESIDENT AND CEO / HEAD COACH MNT)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMIE DAVIS (PRESIDENT AND CEO): $730,614 total reported compensation
- CHARLES KIRALY (HEAD COACH WNT): $464,537 total reported compensation
- JOHN SPERAW (PRESIDENT AND CEO / HEAD COACH MNT): $412,435 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
USA Volleyball is the national governing body for the sport of volleyball in the United States. Its mission is to provide leadership, resources, and opportunities for the growth and development of volleyball at all levels, from grassroots to elite competition.
What it reported doing in 2024
National team development program - provide volleyball athletes with the best coaching and competition available, and develop the pipeline to the USA national volleyball teams.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 84% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 76.4%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 84.2%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: $49.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 17th 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: 9.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd 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: 76.4% of revenue deployed · 84.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 18 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $35.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $731K · 31 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $198K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.