Sacramento Running Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943300121
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9169834622
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,401,218
Expenses
$3,464,707
Assets
$3,036,807
Liabilities
$150,965

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENIS ZILAFF (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LEIGH RUTLEDGE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TAMARA TORLAKSON (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DENIS ZILAFF (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE POLANSKY (TREASURER)
  • LEIGH RUTLEDGE (VICE 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. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The sacramento running association (sra), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization was established in 1982 with the mission of bringing world class running events to the sacramento area. The first stage of this mission was fulfilled when the inaugural California international marathon was held in december of 1983. Since then the success of the cim has enabled the sra to expand its mission to encourage people of all ages to develop a healthy lifestyle through running. To this end it has established a variety of running events and provides funds and resources to the beneficiaries of the organization.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization puts on an annual hall of fame banquet to recognize local athletes that have made significant contributions to the sport of long distance running either through excellence in the sport or significant contributions to the sport. The sra also recognizes and honors the best performances and achievements from the proceeding year with the annual achievement awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 44.3%; rating input score 44; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.3%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.1% of revenue deployed · 91.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $3.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.