Experimental Aircraft Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
743022196
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Shavano Park, TX, USA
Phone
2105766696
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$82,381
Expenses
$37,842
Assets
$133,256
Liabilities
$3,344

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IAN HERITCH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • IAN HERITCH (PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL WURSTER (VICE PRESIDE)
  • DOLORES BRAME (TREASURER)

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

This organization promotes education of youth in the field of aviation, including learning to fly and learning about support industries, such as mechanics and production for aircraft.

What it reported doing in 2024

The youth training scholarships are for youth learning to fly and obtain a pilots license.scholarships are based on letters of recommendations and the evaluation of a committee of the board of directors of eaa. Scholarship funds are made available to scholars in increments based on meeting certain milestones. Their progress is verified by a coordinator, as are invoices for services provided to the student. In 2024, eaa was working with seven scholarship students, of which three obtained their pilots license. In addition, eaa had 165 youth who participated in three events promoting youth interest in aviation and related support industries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 49% for direct work, and 51% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.3%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 54.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.52; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.