Ice Skating Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841281083
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Grand Junction, CO, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Winter Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$164,943
Expenses
$191,037
Assets
$159,629
Liabilities
$30,151

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote ice sports and education

What it reported doing in 2011

Money is raised for operating hockey team for ages 5 to 18 yrs of age operations include having hockey equipment available for all players at all ages and levels of competition help in reducing costs for ice rental travel costs and in certain ca ses instruction costs

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -15.8%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $191K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.