Women for Rugby Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
833074524
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2023
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Pleasant Hill, CA, USA
Phone
5102688500
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$20
Expenses
$5,199
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MORGAN ROBERTS (CEO (FORMER))
  • JENNIFER SEVER (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • PHILLIP TAGAMI (DIRECTOR (FORMER))
  • ALEV KELTER (DIRECTOR (FORMER))
  • RICHIE WALKER (DIRECTOR (FORMER))

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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Women for rugby is formed for charitable purposes to promote and encourage the growth and development of rugby as an athletic option for girls and women. Also to educate the general public and to make such efforts as the board deems necessary to foster the continued growth of rugby.

What it reported doing in 2023

To promote the growth of women playing rugby and promote awareness in the community

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Transfer-based 990-EZ. The 990-EZ reports grants or member benefits, but it does not separate enough spending to show the nonprofit’s full delivery mix.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -25,895%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -66.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -57.3% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization is recorded as not currently operating in California.