Edwards Air Force Base Civilian-Military Support Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
770542621
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Lancaster, CA, USA
Phone
6619420435
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,898
Expenses
$36,769
Assets
$149,290

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Matt Winheim (President)
  • Al Hoffman (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Matt Winheim (President)
  • David Norris (Treasurer)
  • Rhonda Mays (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose and general nature of the Edwards Air Force Base Civilian/Military Support Group is to establish a friendly benevolent association of civic leaders and military personnel at Edwards Air Force Base, to act as a host group whenever needed and additionally, to consider an annual service project to benefit EAFB.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization organized several on base social activities and donated holiday gift baskets and other items to airforce families in the current period.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 43% for direct work, and 57% for grants.

The verdict

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

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.5%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 65.1%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.1%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.06; rating input score 80; 80th 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: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.6% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.5% of revenue deployed · 65.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.