Lzb Locking
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994389730
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2065803364
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Dance
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,579
- Expenses
- $4,083
- Assets
- $5,399
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Suqin Lin (President)
People named in this filing
- Suqin Lin (President)
- Brendon Mak (Secretary)
- Amy Lin (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
The purpose of LZB LOCKING is to engage and educate the communities both locally and around Seattle, Washington in the art of street dance, particularly the Locking Dance Style. Through a combination of workshops, classes, and events, LZB hopes to provide an outlet for members, establishing a platform for expression where everyone can learn, be themselves, and engage in dance activities together.
What it reported doing in 2025
We hosted a canadian dancer in seattle for a few workshops. She taught classes and judged a event we hosted
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.7%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 93%; rating input score 93
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 37.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.32; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 76.3% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 35.3% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 60.1% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.7% of revenue deployed · 93% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.