The Red-land Club Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 540352490
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2018
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2018
- Location
- Charlottesville, VA, USA
- Phone
- 4342966442
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Recreational l Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $101,712
- Expenses
- $93,833
- Assets
- $265,720
- Liabilities
- $4,590
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BRIAN ROY (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- BRIAN ROY (PRESIDENT)
- RAY BRANN (VICE PRESIDE)
- DAVID WASULKO (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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The red-land club is established for the promotion of social intercourse and for the purpose of maintaining a library and reading room for members. The club owns a building that was first constructed in 1832 and is a historic structure. The building's first floor and basement are used for club functions by club members. The third floor is rented to unrelated parties as office space. The net rental investment income is used to maintain the overall condition of the building for member's use.
What it reported doing in 2018
The red-land club hosted its annual meeting for members where new officers were selected by vote pursuant to bylaws of the organization.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and total assets are large relative to annual expenses, but may not be spendable cash. 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: 14
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 16%; rating input score 16
- Program expense ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 12
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.83; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 16% of revenue deployed · 11.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $11K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2018
- 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 16/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.