Bay State Hockey Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203987286
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Marlborough, MA, USA
Phone
5088201600
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Christianity
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,010
Expenses
$11,794
Assets
$314,244

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHISTOPHER MASTERS (PRESIDENT/TR)

People named in this filing

  • CHISTOPHER MASTERS (PRESIDENT/TR)
  • PETER MASTERS (CLERK)
  • BRETT CONDRON (DIRECTOR)

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 support and help fund amateur hockey players careers on the ice as well as academically and in the community. The aim of those that would benefit from the bay state hockey foundation is to help further their hockey careers through on and off ice development. The bshf also works to raise money to support sled hockey for physically imparied children and vets. We work with partners to offer free hockey to those children who are physically imparied as well as for diabled veterans.

What it reported doing in 2024

To support and help fund amateur hockey players careers on the ice as well as academically and in the community.

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 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -68.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 26.64; rating input score 97; 97th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -39.5% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $10K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.