Graton Community Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 946093957
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2008
- Location
- Graton, CA, USA
- Phone
- 7075420797
- Rating
- 52
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $44,768
- Expenses
- $35,265
- Assets
- $263,358
- Liabilities
- $1,684
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARY ANN WERBACK (PRESIDENT)
- CHINA DUSK (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MARY ANN WERBACK (PRESIDENT)
- CHINA DUSK (VICE PRESIDENT)
- LYNN ST CLAIR GRETTON (TREASURER)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide a meeting facility for members, friends of members, and residents of the graton area in order to foster and aid community participation and cooperation; and to contribute to the community welfare by providing cultural events and opporrtunities for charitable work for members, friends of members and the public.
What it reported doing in 2025
Provide a facility for the community for a lending library, polling place, and for local service and other nonprofitorganizations such as graton community projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, and 56% for grants.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 26
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 28.7%; rating input score 29
- Program expense ratio: 21.2%; rating input score 21
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 21.2%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.47; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 28.7% of revenue deployed · 21.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 29/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.