San Dimas Senior Citizen Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 352862044
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- San Dimas, CA, USA
- Phone
- 2038417064
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Senior Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $47,307
- Expenses
- $39,665
- Assets
- $41,913
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MARY ERICHSEN (PRESIDENT)
- JANET PACE (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
- NANCY WILSON (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- MARY ERICHSEN (PRESIDENT)
- JANET PACE (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
- NANCY WILSON (2ND 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To foster goodwill and enhance the welfare of senior citizens by offering a welcoming association where older adults can enjoy companionship, engage in wholesome and healthful activities, and pursue lifelong learning and new interests. The club operates under a nonsectarian, nonpartisan, nonprofit, and nondiscriminatory policy, and is committed to giving back to the city of san dimas and the broader community.
What it reported doing in 2024
The club has 175 members, a meeting is held every tuesday with social interaction, entertainment, speakers, and seminars. Bingo is a separate event for mostly non-club senior services and provides social interaction and entertainment to about 100 people every tuesday. The club awarded 20 college scholarships, totaling $13,400, to local high school students which allowed several needy students to start their higher education. The club donated $16,523 to local elementary school ptas, foodbank, meal on wheel and other community charities. The club members also donate food to local food banks.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 89% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 90
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.8%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 16.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $40K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.