Asheville GreenWorks

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
561672870
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
8282541776
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,462,763
Expenses
$819,706
Assets
$901,806
Liabilities
$129,173

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jenny Abla (President)
  • Gillie Roberts (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Eric Bradford (Interim ED 6/1/24-7/31/24): $78,074 total reported compensation
  • Allison Jordan (Interim ED 8/1/24-4/30/25): $38,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Asheville GreenWorks inspires, equips and mobilizes communities to create an equitable climate-resilient future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Asheville GreenWorks hosts four Hard 2 Recycle events per year in Buncombe County, empowering community members to protect our environment by recycling or safely disposing of materials not accepted through curbside services, such as electronics, batteries, and Styrofoam. Through partnership with several committed vendors, the program welcomed 2,867 vehicles to divert 66.6 tons of recyclables from the landfill, including 777 televisions and 13,000 lbs. of Styrofoam, while educating participants on waste reduction and circular economy practices. This initiative reduces environmental harm from improper disposal practices and expands access to safe waste disposal options.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 44%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.1; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $602K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $78K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.