Rogue Valley Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461474372
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Jacksonville, OR, USA
Phone
2182480118
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,510
Expenses
$15,691
Assets
$467,479
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joshua Paddock (President)
  • Justin Caprari (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Joshua Paddock (President)
  • Justin Caprari (Vice President)
  • Tonia Fox (Secretary)

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

RVHPA exists to provide and disseminate knowledge of how to safely fly hang gliders and paragliders, promote adherence to USHPA requirements and FAA regulations, organize flying meets; acquire, develop, and maintain launches and landing zones; and promote goodwill towards the sports of paragliding and hang gliding in the communities where our members fly.

What it reported doing in 2025

Maintained weather stations to provide weather information from stations to support flying safe flying decisions. Maintained website to provide landing zone information weather and site inform online in real time. Briefed pilots on incidents and accidents at monthly meetings to promote safe flying. Held a fly-in to promote the sport and flying in the Applegate Valley. These services benefitted hundreds of pilots in the local flying community and additional visiting pilots. Additional pilots benefited from the information posted on the association's website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 87
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 65.5%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.79; rating input score 97; 97th 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: -13.8% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -33.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 41.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 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
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.