Ridgewood Country Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
741049861
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Waco, TX, USA
Phone
2547720160
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,367,400
Expenses
$10,207,268
Assets
$16,185,601
Liabilities
$7,338,481

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDY MCSWAIN APRIL - DECEMBER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ANDY MCSWAIN JANUARY - MARCH (PRESIDENT)
  • JIM THERRELL JANUARY - MARCH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JIM BOWEN JANUARY-MARCH (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • JIM THERRELL APRIL - DECEMBER (PRESIDENT)
  • MATT MORRISON APRIL - DECEMBER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM HORTON (GENERAL MANAGER): $333,838 total reported compensation
  • JON SNIDER (GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT): $212,807 total reported compensation
  • JAMES CUNNINGHAM (HEAD GOLF PRO): $200,685 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose for which the club is formed is not to make profit, but to own, establish and maintain a social organization with clubhouse, golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, marina, and such other recreational facilities as may from time to time be authorized by the directors of the club.

What it reported doing in 2024

Clubhouse activities: approximately 987 members use the clubhouse for parties and civic/professional functions throughout the year. Approximately 14,000 usages occur per year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.5%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $334K · 34 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $578K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.