Recovery Workshops Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 330640165
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Dana Point, CA, USA
- Rating
- 87
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Education N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $75,010
- Expenses
- $73,021
- Assets
- $57,174
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WALTER TRANT (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- WALTER TRANT (PRESIDENT)
- MICHAEL CANTRILL (SECRETARY)
- SUSAN TRANT (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
This couples retreat came out of dr. Pauls continuing desire to improve his relationship with his wife max and his interest in learning how relationship problems can be more effectively conquered. The weekend is dedicated to the improvement of our relationships by looking at and practicing communications skills. The caring and honest sharing that occurs at aa and alanon meetings is the foundation of the workshop.
What it reported doing in 2025
This organization organizes an annual communications workshop for couples in recovery with emphasis on individual and families in which at least one member is an alcoholic and in recovery.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.8%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 97.1%; rating input score 97
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.8% of revenue deployed · 97.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $71K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2014 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.