North Carolina Tar Heels Ice Hockey
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814999155
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
- Location
- Durham, NC, USA
- Phone
- 9194511707
- Rating
- 71
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $385,116
- Expenses
- $245,270
- Assets
- $154,504
- Liabilities
- $317
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Stephen Miller (Vice President)
- Rich Gurlitz (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Stephen Miller (Vice President)
- Rich Gurlitz (Vice President)
- Colin Wahl (Pres & Treas)
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
The Club is a nonprofit corporation organized exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and Section 55A-1-40(4) of the North Carolina General Statutes. It is not established for the private gain of any individual and is specifically dedicated to fostering national and international amateur sports competition.The Clubs purpose includes, but is not limited to, securing funding to support and sustain an ice hockey team representing the University of North Carolina, competing at the intercollegiate level.Significant Activities include fundraising through donor outreach, selling game tickets, executing fundraising events and soliciting donations. Additionally, we are in the process of doing research to help secure a new home arena for the team
What it reported doing in 2024
We are leading an initiative to secure a new ice hockey arena to serve as the home venue for the University of North Carolina Ice Hockey program.This effort includes, but is not limited to, raising seed funding, conducting preliminary research to identify a suitable site, commissioning an independent feasibility study, engaging local town leadership to build support, and ultimately developing a comprehensive business plan.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 58
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.9%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.3%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.63; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 34.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 48.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.9% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $227K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.