Verona Competitive Cheerleading Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
814275973
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Verona, NJ, USA
Phone
9734549965
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$20,321
Expenses
$27,409
Assets
$0

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN JANDOLI (President)
  • ALLISON EVANS (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • MICHELE SCHMIDT (Treasurer)
  • KAREN JANDOLI (President)
  • ALLISON EVANS (Vice 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

To provide funds & contributions to allow children to compete in cheerleading. This will instill & bolster the self-esteem, morale, spirit & camaraderie amongst young girls. In addition, they will also be performing volunteer work within the local community.

What it reported doing in 2024

To provide funds & contributions to allow children to compete in cheerleading. This will instill & bolster the self-esteem, morale, spirit & camaraderie amongst young girls. In addition, they will be peforming volunteer work within the local community.

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: 98
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 96.1%; rating input score 96

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.9%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 96.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $26K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.