Team Holla Curling
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 393495587
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Rochester Hills, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2485065387
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Amateur Sports
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,318
- Expenses
- $7,318
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
1 person listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TROY STEVENSON (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- TROY STEVENSON (PRESIDENT)
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 organization is organized and operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. Its primary purpose is to support and develop a women's junior curling team by providing training, coaching, and competitive opportunities for youth athletes.the organization raises funds to assist with the costs of participation in regional, national, and international curling events, including travel, lodging, entry fees, and related expenses. Financial assistance may be provided to team members based on need and other objective criteria to reduce economic barriers and ensure broader access to competitive youth athletics.through participation in these activities, the organization promotes physical fitness, discipline, teamwork, and sportsmanship, while providing educational experiences that contribute to the personal development of its athletes. All activities are conducted in furtherance of the organization's charita
What it reported doing in 2025
Enhanced athlete development and community engagement
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 100% of its reported program spending for member benefits.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- 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: 0%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- 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: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 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.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.