Usvba Columbia Empire Region Volleyball

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930291438
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Beaverton, OR, USA
Phone
5036447468
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,468,180
Expenses
$1,430,199
Assets
$1,055,892
Liabilities
$1,770

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CODY MARCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • SEAN DAUGHERTY (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK SYKES (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CODY MARCH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAY KUDLICKA (SECRETARY)
  • JENNA COX (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote amateur volleyball interests. Ceva is one of 40 regions of USA volleyball, encompassing the state of Oregon and sw Washington.

What it reported doing in 2024

For the year ended june 30, ceva had approxomately 11,500 members. Participants consisted of junior girls, junior boys and several categories of adults. The organization hosted tournaments throughout the state of Oregon and sw Washington, beginning in december through may, culminating with the ceva regional championships at the portland expo center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 93% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.2%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 90.4%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.2% of revenue deployed · 90.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 26 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.