Bicentennial Volunteers Incorporated
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 621204440
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Knoxville, TN, USA
- Phone
- 8656328088
- Rating
- 62
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Voluntarism Promotion
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,721,931
- Expenses
- $5,055,182
- Assets
- $29,152,503
- Liabilities
- $482,387
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KATHERINE BLACK (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DONALD BOYLES (PROJECT MANAGER): $328,540 total reported compensation
- MARK GOFF (PRODUCTION ENGINEER): $306,522 total reported compensation
- FRANK BARBER (NEW SITE CONSTRUCTION MANA): $267,743 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Bicentennial volunteers (bvi) supports the Tennessee valley authority (tva) and the people of the tva service area by providing funding for charitable projects including funding for robotics education and competitions, stem education at schools within the tva service area, as well as supporting other charitable organizations and related organizations in their charitable endeavors. Bvi provides a volunteer staff to support the Tennessee valley authority (tva)-owned visitor centers, educational and public information programs. It also provides management services to related tax-exempt organizations having shared interest.
What it reported doing in 2024
Supporting schools, through Tennessee valley robotics, across the Tennessee valley that participate in robotics competitions. Supporting the organization to continue providing education through the use of robotics, team work and competitions.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 32
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 44
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.7%; rating input score 36
- Program expense ratio: 35.4%; rating input score 35
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 98.9%; rating input score 99; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -7.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.77; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.7% of revenue deployed · 35.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $329K · 16 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 36/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.