The Durango Wine Experience Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208566840
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2020
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Durango, CO, USA
Phone
9709462408
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,476
Expenses
$12,110
Assets
$11,630

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Mitch Dye (President)
  • Mike French (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Kim Oyler (Director)
  • Shawn Candelaria (Director)
  • Charles P Fredrick (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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To enhance the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of the Durango, Colorado area by providing educational programs to attendees about viniculture, by providing a forum for winemakers, and to raise money for chosen charities and non-profits.

What it reported doing in 2020

A three day event put on in the City of Durango to enhance the charitable, cultural, educational and economic development of the Durango, Colorado area. Provided educational programs for attendees: to explore the historical impacts of viticulture on the different world cultures and societies; increasing awareness and interest in and provide a better understanding of new and developing aspects of wine production and consumption; to discuss recent trends and changes in wine making philosophy and techniques; and to explore the relationship between wine making and wine consumption and the culinary arts. To provide a forum for wine makers to showcase new and existing products and to raise money for local charities and non-profits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 71

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.5%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 34; 34th 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: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.9% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2020
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.