Patrick Henry Archery Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 923682292
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2025
- Location
- Hamler, OH, USA
- Phone
- 6163339041
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $26,323
- Expenses
- $23,013
- Assets
- $29,517
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Maas (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Dana Tietje (Secretary)
- John Maas (Vice President)
- James Whitman (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Patrick Henry Archery Association is organized exclusively for educational purposes which include: Raising funds for the support of archery education programs at Patrick Henry Local Schools. Providing financial assistance to the Patrick Henry Local Schools archery department in obtaining equipment, uniforms, and other items and services not normally available through school district sources. Fostering greater archery achievement by sponsoring awards, contest fees, and scholarships. Provide moral support to the archery programs of the Patrick Henry Local Schools and help stimulate student and community interest in the appreciation and support thereof. Work in partnership with the archery department faculty, staff, administration and the Patrick Henry School Board.
What it reported doing in 2025
Provided Hotel /Travel expenses as well entrance fees for 72 families, for State level tournament competitions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 93% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.1%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 59.6%; rating input score 60
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 54; 54th 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: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.1% of revenue deployed · 59.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $14K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.