Golden Gate Pickleball Club Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
821227609
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2022, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2018
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
4155163342
Rating
91
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Racquet Sports

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,385
Expenses
$57,902
Assets
$72,726
Liabilities
$520

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Peter Zepponi (Director)
  • Shelly Thomas (Co-Chair)
  • Tanya Slesnick (Co-Chair)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To facilitate the growth of pickleball in the San Francisco Bay Area for the enjoyment, health and social engagement of all players by offering organized recreational and competitive play, by insuring opportunities for continued development of all players in a collegial and sportsmanlike environment and by working to expand facilities and programs as needed.

What it reported doing in 2024

GGP offered organized recreational and competitive play, and clinics to beginners.

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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.9%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 43.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.8% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.