T-34 Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 371133394
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
- Location
- Dallas, TX, USA
- Phone
- 3302841702
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $92,425
- Expenses
- $73,102
- Assets
- $145,553
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WILLIAM SMITH (PRESIDENT)
- DAN BLACKWELL JR (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- CURTIS BOULWARE (MEMBERSHIP)
- TERRY BRENNAN (EDITOR MM, DIRECTOR)
- ROB PARRISH (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The t-34 association was formed in july 1975 so that individuals purchasing then military surplus t-34as had an organization which would provide support for these aircraft. The idea was to share operating and maintenance information to all members. As the popularity of the t-34 mentor grew over the years so did the t-34 association. Today there are over 600 members in the association and many are not aircraft owners.
What it reported doing in 2024
T-34 operation and maintenance publications
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 50
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 69
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 45%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 58%; rating input score 58
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 20.9%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 45% of revenue deployed · 58% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $42K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- 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 45/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.