New Hampshire Amateur Ice Sports Athletic Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 113706881
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2021–2021
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2021
- Location
- Hooksett, NH, USA
- Phone
- 6038485212
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Sports Associations &Training Facilities
Reported finances
- Expenses
- $93,439
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2021. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JEREMY VEGA (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JEREMY VEGA (PRESIDENT)
- BRIANNA TREMBLAY (TREASURER)
- JUSTIN L BILLINGS (DIRECTOR)
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 2021. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The purpose of the association is to foster national and international sports competition. To sponsor teams and competitions to support and develop amateur athletes for competion. To sponsor amateur athletes who are unable to afford participation in ameteur ice sports and to provide opportunities to youth of the area communities and region to combat juvenile delinquency. During 2020 nh amateur ice sports athletic foundation ceased its operations, and during 2021 dissolved the organization and distributed its assets (after payment of all debts and expenses) pursuant to its bylaws and as approved by its board of directors.
What it reported doing in 2021
The purpose of the association is to foster national and international sports competition. To sponsor teams and competitions to support and develop amateur athletes for competion. To sponsor amateur athletes who are unable to afford participation in ameteur ice sports and to provide opportunities to youth of the area communities and region to combat juvenile delinquency.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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: 37
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 10
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: Limited
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 99.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $93K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 3 of 3 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.