Eastview Hockey Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411895742
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Apple Valley, MN, USA
Phone
6128343416
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Camps

Reported finances

Revenue
$634,990
Expenses
$567,522
Assets
$200,915
Liabilities
$4,954

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • AARON HAREID (PRESIDENT, AWAY TOURNAMENT COORDINATOR, ASST. MITE COORDINATOR, FUNDRAISING)
  • CHAD LARSEN (VICE PRESIDENT/GAMBLING LIASON/PDC COMMITTEE/CONCESSION COORDINATOR/TRAINING CENTER/5000 SHOT CLUB)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY BALTZER (GAMBLING MANAGER): $152,821 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINA BEDDIES (ICE COORDINATOR/RECRUITMENT COORD./JERSEY & APPAREL COORDINATOR/ASST. FUNDRAISING COORDINATOR): $7,000 total reported compensation
  • MICHELLE STESSMAN (ADMINISTRATOR/ASST. ICE COORDINATOR): $4,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provides a fun and educational experience for the children in the eastview high school attendance area who wish to play ice hockey.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fundraising events these events are held to provide additional moral and financial support to eastview area youth hockey programs. Fundraising events also create a positive social environment where the youth and their parents can interact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 95.7%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 77.8%; rating input score 78; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.3%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 95.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 18 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $543K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.