Davis Community Track and Field
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 364831344
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2017–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- Davis, CA, USA
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $33,177
- Expenses
- $35,382
- Assets
- $7,218
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PAM PETERSON (President)
- RHONDA ELLIOTT (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- PAM PETERSON (President)
- RHONDA ELLIOTT (Vice President)
- LIV O'KEEFFE (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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide affordable, healthy and safe recreational opportunities for youth and adults through track and field training and competition and to support the development of traxk and fiels as a club sport.
What it reported doing in 2017
The davis community track and field club (dctfc) is a registered under the pacoific association of the usatf, the governing body of track and field in the united states. The dctfc is a usatf track club that provides coaching and training for all track and field events. Dctfc seeks to promote the sport of track and field, to develop athletes' skills and to encourage physical fitness and a healthy lifestyle. More importantly, dctfc promotes the value of sportsmanship, teamwork, personal goal setting and hard work. The two primary objectives of the club are:1) to help athletes reach their goals in a fun and safe environment.2) to mentor and guide the next generation of track and field coaches in our community.
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
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 100
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 99.3%; rating input score 99
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6.6%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.2; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 35.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $35K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.