West Covina High School Choral Union Booster Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
953095567
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
West Covina, CA, USA
Phone
6268410563
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Parent/Teacher Group

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,581
Expenses
$34,906
Assets
$17,985

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER KAWASKI (President)
  • STEPHANIE CORTEZ (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • TYLER WIGGLESWORTH (Director)
  • CHRISTOPHER KAWASKI (President)
  • STEPHANIE CORTEZ (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

The mission of the West Covina High School Choral Department is to build, unify and strengthen a Choral Department that develops the future singers/musicians through the study of music theory, different cultural and musical genres and performance of high quality music. This is all done with the belief that each singer enters the department with their own unique background, works hard & masters skills, and emerges unified as part of the Choral Department Family.

What it reported doing in 2024

Uniform and equipment for participants

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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 53
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.7%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 83.1%; rating input score 83

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.1%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 30; 30th 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: 47.2% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 50.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 76.5% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.7% of revenue deployed · 83.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is not authorized to operate as a charity in California.