Ash Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582457968
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Douglas, GA, USA
Phone
9123841873
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$222,852
Expenses
$223,725
Assets
$12,365
Liabilities
$100

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • LUKE MORGAN (CHAIRMAN)
  • NORMA LYNN HAND (VICE CHAIRMA)
  • JOANNE LEWIS (CHIEF STAFF)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The corporation shall be organized, and at all times thereafter operated, exclusively for charitable, literary, and educational uses and purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code. Those purposes shall include, without limitation, the following: (a) to assist in the gathering and dissemination of information on the historical heritage of coffee county, Georgia through the promotion and development of historical research, file projects, media displays, public seminars, and collaborative efforts with local historical societies and commissions, general john e. Coffee state park, the city of douglas, and other groups involved in historical education and preservation; (b) to acquire, restore, and preserve historic properties, treasures, furniture, and other historic items significant to coffee county, Georgia, and to make the same available for public display, education or use; (c) to support and promote leadership in coffee county, Georgia by developing,

What it reported doing in 2024

See organizations primary exempt purpose

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.7%; rating input score 99; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -11.6% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 99.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $223K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.