Womens Golf Association of Baltimore

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311559496
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Lutherville, MD, USA
Phone
4433862750
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$25,203
Expenses
$25,514
Assets
$67,965
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • March Klein (President)
  • Stephanie Kafonek (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • March Klein (President)
  • Stephanie Kafonek (Vice President)
  • Tonia Burnette (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the association shall be for the encouragement of better golf and friendly competition in golf among local women players by conducting open day events and other tournaments as may be scheduled by the Board of Governors.

What it reported doing in 2024

WGA was able to schedule and play 22 days at different clubs and also provided the opportunity to play in four competitive tournaments for the members of the Women's Golf Association. The Average number of women playing on any given day was 22.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 89.9%; rating input score 90

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.66; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91% of revenue deployed · 89.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.