Rosewood Lakes Golf Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943168505
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Sparks, NV, USA
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Human Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,181
- Expenses
- $18,849
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SHAWN MCMENOMY (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- DENNIS YOUNG (TREASURER)
- JOHN ESTAY (VICE PRESIDE)
- SHAWN MCMENOMY (PRESIDENT)
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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
All activities will be conducted by the board of directors of the association initited february 19, 1992. 1. Enforce the rules of golf as established by the us golf association. 2. Establish a handicapping system and list for all members of the association. 3. To raise money for prizes and awards for members and junior golfers. 4. To raise money and manpower for members and junior golfers. 5. To encourage the general public to obey golf course rules and regulations in and around the wetlands on golf course property. 6. To conduct championship tournaments for members of the association. 7. To subscribe to appropriate organizations such as the u.s. Golf association, northern Nevada golf association, etc.
What it reported doing in 2013
New junior golfers were introduced into the game of golf, tournament was successful and productive with community involvement. Increased numbers of junior golfers has been realized and continue to grow.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 87% 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: 12
- Growth: 40
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: -54.7%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -17.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.