Ashby Village Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272174330
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Berkeley, CA, USA
Phone
5102049200
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$918,336
Expenses
$812,036
Assets
$807,644
Liabilities
$136,677

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Beatrice Bab Freiberg (Exec Director): $134,950 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ashby Village connects us with one another, offering support and opportunities for meaningful, engaging experiences.

What it reported doing in 2024

OTHER KEY ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Operations:* Moved to a more functional, accessible, welcoming, and inclusive location.* Earned Candids Platinum Seal of Transparency, the highest recognition for nonprofit accountability and transparency. * Introduced a lower-cost membership option in July 2023, resulting in a 130% increase in older adults who are benefiting from this lower-cost optionfrom 27 to 62 members.* Membership averaged 447 for the fiscal year.* Enhanced data collection and tracking:* Streamlined member service request procedures and clarified membership application and renewal policies.* Completed a comprehensive member survey:* Concluded a strategic consulting engagement with ZS to enhance collaboration and communication between staff and volunteer leaders. This resulted in Board-approved Ways of Working guidelines clarifying roles, responsibilities, and authorities.* Renamed the Program Leadership Team as the Village Leadership Advisory Council with a renewed focus on collaborative problem-solving and strategic advising.* Completed a prioritization process to focus organizational talent, energy, and resources on the programs and services with the greatest potential impact given member needs, volunteer and staff capacity, and other resources.Programs and Services:* Continued growth in in-person and online engagement, including Support, Interest, and Neighborhood Groups; Social & Pre-Social Hours, public presentations, and community gatherings.* Volunteers fulfilled nearly 1,400 service requests from members (e.g., rides, grocery shopping, tech support, home repairs, organizing, gardening).* Member-to-Member Engagement Group (M2M) planned and tested member designed and led strategies to foster peer-to-peer connection, communication, and mutual support among members.* Substantial growth and expansion in technology support by our volunteers:* Onboarded 56 new volunteers and launched a Volunteer Corner, a bi-monthly email blast.* Strengthened and initiated partnerships with UC Berkeleys Haas School of Business, DataGood, Berkeley and Emeryville Senior Centers, East Bay Senior Pride, and Kaiser Permanente.Finance and Development:* Ended FY 20242025 with a balanced budget.* Improved cash management through higher-yield savings instruments.* Reduced significantly our office rental costs.* Achieved fundraising targets.* Secured new support for FY25-26 from current funders: Long Foundation for a planning grant to expand access to healthcare for older adults and Menorah Park Community Impact Fund to deepen our development work.* Launched our first corporate sponsorship program to support the 15th Anniversary Major Donor Celebration and on-going operations.* Initiated a market study to identify potential future earned-income strategies through collaborations with other senior service organizations (e.g., senior residential communities and medical practices).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.4% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $642K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.