French Wine Society Inc Co Lawrence Gaffey

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203287333
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2014
Forms available
Form 990 2014
Location
Reston, VA, USA
Phone
2026008022
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$382,631
Expenses
$424,041
Assets
$100,104
Liabilities
$7,450

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIEN CAMUS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIEN CAMUS (PRESIDENT): $25,347 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To function as a trade association of french wine importers; to develop, analyze and disseminate information/data related to french wine to its members and the general public; to promote a favorable social and economic environment for french wine in the united states.

What it reported doing in 2014

Membership in the french wine society provides a unique opportunity for wine professionals, wine aficionados and francophiles around the world to be part of a vibrant community sharing common goals: expanding wine knowledge, exploring the diverse world of french wines and exchanging information with peers. Live webinars offer fws members the unique opportunity to learn about diverse and current wine topics presented by an exceptional panel of experts. Members also have access to a rich library of over 50 lectures on live member webinars. Members receive a 10% discount on educational materials, including encational manuals, online study programs and exams for all fws programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 50
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -10.8%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.24; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $341K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $25K · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.