Sugar Land City Care Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933549941
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Sugar Land, TX, USA
Phone
2819102302
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$74,286
Expenses
$53,125
Assets
$70,724

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ELIZABETH ROSENBAUM (BOARD MEMBER)
  • GINA MCKINNEY (BOARD MEMBER)
  • JACOB RIVERA (BOARD MEMBER)

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

Life changes. Our support for each other will not. At the sugar land city care club (c3), we strive to help one another through integrity and compassion; to alleviate worry by helping one another through life changing events and celebrating opportunities to reach the unimaginable.

What it reported doing in 2025

Financial help in various forms such as: financial support in time of need (death in the family). Specific support to subsidize financially (vehicle breakdown, medical bills, rent, etc) physical labor + materials and supplies (fence repair, wrapping pipes before freeze, inclement weather preparation) total financial grants provided: grants from c3 (from payroll donations + fundraising revenues) = 15,426.68 direct donations from external entities: 33,400 intended to support the family of city of sugar land employee following medical diagnosis. Of individuals to whom help was provided: 20

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.2%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 92.6%; rating input score 93

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: 28.5%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.33; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.2% of revenue deployed · 92.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $49K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.