Amarillo Hockey Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
752600092
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Amarillo, TX, USA
Phone
8066707577
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sports Associations &Training Facilities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$337,113
Expenses
$301,425
Assets
$191,041
Liabilities
$467

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jason Chafe (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Austin Sutter (Director): $73,421 total reported compensation
  • Eric Anderson (Director): $35,285 total reported compensation
  • Jennifer Vigil (Secretary-Treasurer): $4,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide a positive learning and maturing experience for young athletes in a youth hockey setting.

What it reported doing in 2020

The Organization conducts educational seminars and training in ice hockey and forms teams in various age divisions from ages three and up playing competitive and instructional hockey. An adult hockey league was added in 2015 with a total of four teams with teams in an official league in Dallas, and tournament teams are offered. In 2017, the association began offering ice skating (figure skating) instruction, including at least one annual performance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.64 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 38.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $290K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $73K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2017 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.