Volleyball Vibe

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364683760
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Danville, CA, USA
Phone
9253006166
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,787,487
Expenses
$1,787,487
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Kris Keller (Director): $248,955 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide an amateur sports program for all people to promote good sportsmanship and citizenship for amateur athletes currently for junior girls and boys ages 9-18 in the sport of volleyball.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provided junior girls ages 9-17 an opportunity to learn and play amateur volleyball within the Northern California region NCVA of USA volleyball and the AAU program through the formation of teams organized practices and competition in organize tournaments and clinics both indoor and outdoor on the grass and in sand. Organized tournaments were located in both the San Francisco Bay area where travel expenses are minimal as well as non-local and out-of-state tournaments where travel included higher expenses such as flights and hotel rooms. This year we added a both junior boys program and an expanded girl program called juniors development league

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 5
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -75% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $249K · 2 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.