Columbus United Fencing Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
934909911
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$93,274
Expenses
$78,346
Assets
$35,838

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matthew Dicken (President)
  • Trevor Pedersen (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Matthew Dicken (President)
  • Trevor Pedersen (Vice President)
  • Frank Zamary (Secretary)

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

The Columbus United Fencing Club was established to promote European historical fencing and martial arts within the Columbus metropolitan area. Our activities aim to educate individuals about historical martial arts provide a platform for competitive fencing and support community building through various programs. Our programs are designed to cater to a wide audience including marginalized genders fostering inclusivity and representation in the sport. Our activities are primarily funded through class fees tournament entry fees and donations.

What it reported doing in 2025

CUFC expanded programming to include a Fundamentals Class in addition other regularly scheduled classes to provide focus for new fencers. CUFC teaches 5 days a week. Over 150 fencers have attended classes this year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 92
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.5%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; 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: 112.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 77.1% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 52.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $81K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 6 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.