Birmingham Duplicate Bridge Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
630833746
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2055600706
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$114,921
Expenses
$100,796
Assets
$477,265
Liabilities
$12,397

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GEORGIA RABY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • GEORGIA RABY (PRESIDENT)
  • RON TUCKER (EX OFFICIO)
  • DON WATERS (VICE PRESIDE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Birmingham duplicate bridge club, provides a playing area and experienced teachers to direct and promote competitive duplicate bridge.

What it reported doing in 2025

The birmingham duplicate bridge club, provides a playing area and experienced teachers to direct and promote competitive duplicate contract bridge in an environment that encourages competition and upholds ethical and behaviorial standards. It offers games for various experience levels of players at different times throughout each week to accomodate each individual, who may want to compete and develop duplicate bridge skills. The clubs teachers educate potential bridge players and provide additional education for beginning and experienced bridge players by having training classes, promoting goodwill, nurturing development in all phases of bridge, providing support at all levels, upholding standards of ethical and behavioral competition.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 59.4%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.3%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.73; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52% of revenue deployed · 59.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $60K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.