Association for Traditional Studies

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
841436728
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
8284247415
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Grantmaking Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,031,804
Expenses
$885,377
Assets
$372,155
Liabilities
$16,549

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Steven Badger (President)
  • Andrew Nugent-Head (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Andrew Nugent-Head (Executive Director): $238,134 total reported compensation
  • JulieAnn Nugent-Head (Key Employee): $107,128 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Association of Traditional Studies is an education focused public charity, providing training programs for professionals in the fields of Chinese medicine, martial arts and self development as well as providing low cost opportunities for the public.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provided pro-bono medical care in 2025 and kept fees for treatment below industry standards. Trained international and local practitioners in tangible application of Chinese medicine through clinical internship at the alternative clinic. Treated over 1,000 individual patients in the Asheville Area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 92% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 80%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.86 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 14.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 39%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $708K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $238K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.