St. Augustine DBC
Legal name: St Augustine Duplicate Bridge Club
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 592335742
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2018–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Jul 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Saint Augustine, FL, USA
- Phone
- 9048243930
- Rating
- 39
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $87,190
- Expenses
- $71,313
- Assets
- $242,645
- Liabilities
- $937
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Nancy Schmitt (President)
- Chuck Hansen (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Nancy Schmitt (President)
- Chuck Hansen (Vice President)
- Alan Moynihan (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
To provide a welcoming environment for duplicate bridge players of all levels and support the local community through food pantry donations.
What it reported doing in 2025
Approximately 150 members and guests play the game of bridge 3 times a week. Classes are offered to the general public to interest them in the game and provide them with a recreational outlet. The challenges of the game have been shown to improve cognitive ability in the aging population. In addition, the club assists the local Council on Aging organization in providing similar services to the general public.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 82% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 65
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 18.2%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.4; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.