Patricia Bachman Memorial Scholarship Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
817029003
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Palmyra, PA, USA
Phone
7175072303
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,289
Expenses
$9,507
Assets
$74,795
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Oren Bachman (Trustee)
  • Deb Lang (Trustee)
  • Anne Hoover (Trustee)

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

The Patricia Bachman Memorial Scholarship Fund has as its primary purpose the financial support of Pat's CUBs, a summer educational program offered in the Palmyra Area School District, Palmyra, PA. Patricia Bachman was a principal in the District and was instrumental in starting the program primarily for disadvantaged children. She was a special education teacher prior to becoming a principal and knew that the "summer slide" - the loss of academic progress from the prior school year -affected disadvantaged children more than others. She wanted to provide a way for these kids to practice skills in math, reading, and the arts with professional teachers so that they would be closer to grade level when they returned to school in the fall. The program consists of four weeks of instruction, practice exercises, and other educational activities to maintain and advance reading, math and other academic skills

What it reported doing in 2025

Attendance 78 students participated in CUB. Of those 78 students, 20% of those students attended CUB every single day. 67% of the students attended more than half of the CUB sessions. ELA 22 skills assessed to differentiate instruction and monitor progress Skills included letter names, consonant sounds, vowel sounds, CVC words, consonant digraphs, floss rules, initial and final blends, CVCe words, vowel teams, controlled vowels, diphthongs and complex vowels, and multisyllabic words. Students received small group instruction throughout the four weeks to work on identified skills with a teacher. For students who regularly attended, they all gained in their specific skill at the end of the four weeks. Math At the beginning of CUB some students did show a loss of skills taught during the school year. However, each week at CUB they were able to demonstrate their understanding of math skills taught, which covered a wide range of standards. Standards that were reviewed included base ten, fact fluency, comparing numbers, word problems, and fractions. Students who needed extra practice showed a mastery in skills from the previous grade level, while students who needed enrichment showed an understanding of newer standards. School Readiness Students engaged in activities surrounding the following topics: Growth mindset Understanding feelings and emotions Positive thinking Solving problems and working together (using legos) Visiting with Millie the facility dog Each week students worked in different small groups and have improved in how they relate to each other. Students were encouraged to work any conflicts out with the group first, which was usually successful. Shy students who lacked confidence at the beginning of CUB became more confident in their ability to speak in front of other students as the weeks went by.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

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: 15.8%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.87; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 20.7% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.