Church Hill Middle School PTA Texas CONGRESS

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800257105
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2023
Location
New Braunfels, TX, USA
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$52,480
Expenses
$41,919
Assets
$23,806
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Casey Ott (President)
  • Sheila Murphy (Vice President)
  • Meg Guerra (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Casey Ott (President)
  • Sheila Murphy (Vice President)
  • Meg Guerra (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Church Hill Middle School PTA

What it reported doing in 2025

School Events - educational events provided to students - The organization funded and supported educational, character-building, and student recognition activities throughout the school year. Programs included an anti-bullying and kindness presentation by Hey Dude Nice Shoes, an anti-vaping educational presentation by Rob Holla, an 8th-grade graduation luncheon, and supplies and activities recognizing students transitioning to high school. The organization also supported a school-wide Field Day by sponsoring inflatable attractions, water slides, and snow cones for participating students. These programs promoted student well-being, positive decision-making, school engagement, and community building. The program benefited approximately 750 students and school community members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.9%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 49.9%; rating input score 50

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.1%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.9% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 44.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 57% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.9% of revenue deployed · 49.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.