Lowcountry Hockey Association Dba Charleston Youth Hockey Assoc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582333058
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
North Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8432967694
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Winter Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$233,318
Expenses
$225,447
Assets
$121,960
Liabilities
$8,642

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DUSTIN HAPKA (PRESIDENT)
  • PHIL PASSARELLI (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN BLAIR (HOCKEY DIRECTOR): $2,755 total reported compensation
  • JEFF GASKINS (TRAVEL COMMISSIONER): $2,375 total reported compensation
  • PHIL PASSARELLI (VICE PRESIDENT): $1,805 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide and promote recreational and competitive ice hockey for youth aimed at improving skills instilling sportsmanship and promoting goodwill among players, coaches, and parents.

What it reported doing in 2024

We fielded competitive youth ice hockey teams at both the travel andrecreational levels. We supported USA hockey's mission to help growthe game of hockey with underserved children in our community through the north charleston caps program as well as financial scholarships. Weworked with our players and families to instill a sense of community pride through service events to give back. Our older players served as mentors to our young players. We continued to build good character, sportsmanship and skill with all of out memebers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.1%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 94.2%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.1% of revenue deployed · 94.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $212K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $3K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.