Gold Country Community Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942436273
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Grass Valley, CA, USA
Phone
5302734961
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,734,834
Expenses
$1,826,705
Assets
$2,662,733
Liabilities
$856,636

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jonathan Walker (President)

People named in this filing

  • Dana Turner (Director)
  • Renee Conmy (Director)
  • Jonathan Walker (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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Gold Country Senior Services, Inc provides essential programs that meet the basic needs of seniors living in Western Nevada County. GCSS ensures older adults have nutritional meals, warm homes, social interaction and a greater sense of security.

What it reported doing in 2024

Congregate MealsMeals served in congregate/social settings to seniorsHome Delivered & Contract MealsMeals were delivered during the year.Wood ProgramProvided firewood to Nevada County residents.Program ActivityProvided education classes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $45.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.46; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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: Operating margin scored 23/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.