Sole Sisters Running Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472025833
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Wilmington, MA, USA
Phone
9788510299
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$47,531
Expenses
$24,880
Assets
$76,641
Liabilities
$3,505

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Kristin DeMonico (President)
  • Christina LaChance (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kristin DeMonico (President)
  • Christina LaChance (Vice President)
  • Lisa Kuegler (Treasurer)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Sole Sisters Running Club is an all female non-profit running club. We are a diverse community of runners of all abilities. We strive to share our love of competitive and recreational running through training, group running experiences, and participation in races. We encourage and support our members to attain their running goals, foster a spirit of camaraderie, and give back to the local running community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Charitable contributions, which include 5 high school scholarships and contribution to local event Festival of Trees, as well as other Well Wishes donations to various charitable organizations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.9%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 47.7%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.08; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.9% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.