Charity Case Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272170443
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
St Helena, CA, USA
Phone
7073261215
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$660
Expenses
$660
Assets
$5,873

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PATRICIA A WOODBRIDGE (President)
  • SHEILA MURPHY DAUGHERTY (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • PATRICIA A WOODBRIDGE (President)
  • SHEILA MURPHY DAUGHERTY (Vice President)
  • HELEN D MAWSON (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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The charity case foundation is devoted to voulunteering and raisng funds through the sale of small-production, specially crafted wines to support local non-profit organizations that provide services to children in need and their families.

What it reported doing in 2015

The following were accomplished in 2015: in 2015 the organization was inactive. The organization terminated 3/31/16. Money on hand at termination was disbursed $5,076 to other napa valley, ca nonprofits, $660 to professional fees and $390 miscellaneous operating expenses.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 1.5%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 1.5%; rating input score 2

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 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.9; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -199.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -186.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 1.5% of revenue deployed · 1.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $10 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 45/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.