Minnesota Hockey District 2

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
020786314
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Oakdale, MN, USA
Phone
6512606070
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$852,929
Expenses
$903,281
Assets
$344,158
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID HURSH (PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG BIEVER (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID HURSH (PRESIDENT)
  • DOUG BIEVER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BILL HEADRICK (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Minnesota hockey district 2 is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and education purposes. The purpose of the district shall be to promote, sponsor, provide facilities for, and conduct a supervised program of hockey training and competition for boys and girls in Minnesota hockey for the area defined as district two of Minnesota hockey, for the purpose of making them better citizens, developing sportsmanship and aiding in their physical and mental development.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the course of the hockey season, Minnesota hockey district 2 held the annual coaches and managers meeting in the fall, highlighting any updated rule changes from the previous season. District 2 then oversaw the engagement of team play with over 2,400 games played between over 170 teams and approximately 2,900 players. At the end of league play in february district 2 hosted the year end playoffs with approximately 190 games played to determine which teams will get to move on to regional and then state tournaments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.2%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -5.9%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.38; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $896K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • 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.

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

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.