High School Hockey Parents Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931898532
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Greenfield, MA, USA
Phone
4137746036
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Winter Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$49,912
Expenses
$15,715
Assets
$113,662
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALEXANDER V SIANO (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE LAURIE (VICE-PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ALEXANDER V SIANO (PRESIDENT)
  • STACIE BAUMANN (TREASURER)
  • LINDSAY M SIANO (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

To raise money to support and fund high school hockey in the franklin county, Massachusetts area.

What it reported doing in 2025

The high school hockey association sole purpose is to raise money to fund high school hockey in the franklin county, Massachusetts area. The greenfield high school hockey team is cooperative program that includes most high schools in franklin county. The team receives minimal funding from the greenfield public school system. To provide equal opportunity to participate in athletics the greenfield public school system has policy that students do not pay fees to play school sports. This association provides the funding for the hockey program to exist.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 68.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.23; rating input score 89; 89th 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.

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