Greater Warrenton Chamber of Commerce

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271164578
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Warrenton, VA, USA
Phone
5402163854
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$52,143
Expenses
$40,843
Assets
$37,628
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT HARLAN (PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN ROEDER (CO VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIM JENKINS (CO VICE PRESIDENT)
  • NATALIE HOWARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • DENNIS A TAYLOR (DIRECTOR)
  • BERT VAN GILS (DIRECTOR)
  • SUNNY REYNOLDS (TOWN GOVERNMENT LIAISON)

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 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The greater warrenton chamber of commerce's (gwcc) mission is to help local businesses succeed. The gwcc is committed to its mission to improve the local business climate while sustaining our quality of life through government advocacy, business networking, education, assistance, and advancement programs. Companies join the gwcc to increase their organization's visibility and/or to demonstrate support for the start up, micro and small businesses in our community.

What it reported doing in 2016

Business assistance team: volunteer driven program with which professional services are provided to member businesses by fellow members at no charge to the member receiving asssitance. Chamber reimburses those for their professional time and assistance on an hourly basis to those that have already given 10 hours in kind.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 59
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.7%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.8%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -15% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.4% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.