Mark Iv Harvest
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 841311348
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Loveland, CO, USA
- Phone
- 9704720382
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $54,369
- Expenses
- $30,932
- Assets
- $250,427
- Liabilities
- $133,425
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- EARL TREAT (PRESIDENT)
- STEVE ROCHAT (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- DAVID TREAT (BOARD MEMBER)
- EARL TREAT (PRESIDENT)
- STEVE ROCHAT (VICE PRESIDENT)
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 provide charitable services to the people of the republic of Georgia (since 1995) including education, training and humanitarian services as well as partnering, housing, facilitating and assisting other charitable organizations with likeminded goals and objectives for the benefit and uplift of the people of Georgia and the caucus region.
What it reported doing in 2025
Ace paces, which is the school curriculum for children
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - 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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 56.9%; rating input score 57
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 43.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.1; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.53; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 42%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 56.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $31K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.