Wine Country Kennel Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942174717
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Benecia, CA, USA
Phone
7077460420
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Recreational l Clubs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$66,256
Expenses
$64,323
Assets
$50,882
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JILL LATCHAW (PRESIDENT)
  • INGE SEMENSCHIN (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JILL LATCHAW (PRESIDENT)
  • INGE SEMENSCHIN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIM BATES (RECORDING SECRETARY)

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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote public participation in the "dog fancy" sport within both confirmation and obedience competitive events. The club provides public education forums which are focused on responsible dog ownership, obedience training, animal health maintenance and responsible breeding practices.

What it reported doing in 2015

In order to to promote public participation and provide public education focused on responsible dog ownership wine country kennel club set up wine tasting events raising $3,456 and, after expenses of $1,631, donated the entire proceeds to the following: - napa humane ($825) - take the lead ($1000)

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 52
  • Growth: 40

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: 2.9%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -74.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • 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 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.