Woodland High School Band Booster Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
260246842
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2022
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
Stockbridge, GA, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,628
Expenses
$27,056
Assets
$1,003

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Benjamin Carter (President 2021-2022 and 2022-2023)
  • James Clausell (Vice President 2021-2022 and 2022-2023)

People named in this filing

  • Benjamin Carter (President 2021-2022 and 2022-2023)
  • James Clausell (Vice President 2021-2022 and 2022-2023)
  • Aline Trinette Imsand (Treasurer 2021-2022 and 2022-2023)

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 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See Below

What it reported doing in 2022

The Woodland High School Band Booster Association Inc. WHSBBA exists to provide educational financial social and other support for the Woodland High School WHS band program by providing sound financial assistance through fundraising activities and by the acceptance of donations for the WHS Band Program. WHSBBA seeks to provide for the needs of the students directors and administrators of the WHS Band Program above and beyond the funding provided by the state of Georgia and the Henry County Public School District as well as elevate and enhance the band program to higher levels.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 64.8%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.6%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 7; 7th 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: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 64.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2020 to 2022
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.