Reno-tahoe Open Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880412314
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Reno, NV, USA
Phone
7753223900
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,674,416
Expenses
$3,741,952
Assets
$163,223
Liabilities
$140,765

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KEVIN MURPHY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • RICHARD JAMES (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRIS HOFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRIS HOFF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $195,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To organize an annual pga sanctioned golf tourament to leverage the highest ideals of golf to inspire and transform our community and envirornment and to focus attention on and support other local 501(c)(3) charties.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization of an annual pga tour sanctioned golf tournament that 1) contributes positively to the quality of life in our community; 2) provides a national fundraising tool to focus attention on the various 501(c)(3) charities that the tournament will benefit; 3) promote volunteerism and 4) provide a positive economic impact to the community. Charitable funds were distributed to more than twenty tax-exempt organizations supporting dei initiatives and children's sports programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 91% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.6%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82%; rating input score 82; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.04; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.86; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.6% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $195K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 10 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.