Biking for a Better World Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383732935
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Olympic Valley, CA, USA
Phone
5304010513
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,981
Expenses
$123,576
Assets
$454,421
Liabilities
$31,998

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAKE SPERO (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAKE SPERO (PRESIDENT)
  • CHRIS BARKMAN (VICE PRESIDE)
  • VINCENT ZACHA HERTHEL (SECRETARY)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of biking for a better world, inc. Is to bring the joy of biking to our region. Biking for a better world fosters national and international amateur sports competition, which will be accomplished by, among other things, conducting fundraising, providing instruction on the sport of biking and promoting the same, building community bike parks and bike trails, hosting amateur bike races, and hosting and promoting youth activities.

What it reported doing in 2025

Biking for a better world supports the truckee bike park which has a pump track, dirt jumps, and other features that help improve bike handling skills; and is open to all ages. Money raised through bbw will help build new features and maintain the park.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th 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: -67%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.68; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $111K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.