Charleston Wine & Food Festival

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202671674
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437279998
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,501,351
Expenses
$4,918,894
Assets
$384,898
Liabilities
$1,672,295

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alyssa Maute Smith (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alyssa Maute Smith (Executive Director): $150,973 total reported compensation
  • Anne Marie Hoffman (Director of External Affairs): $122,503 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Charleston Wine + Food is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that supports Charleston and the Lowcountry's diverse culinary + hospitality community. The organization champions the region's unique foodways 365 days a year through world-renowned culinary experiences that bring people together to share stories, create connections, and inspire curiosity. The mission of Charleston Wine + Food is to celebrate the diverse food + beverage community of the greater Charleston area on a national stage and to create programs that build a sustainable, vibrant, and connected culinary + hospitality community.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization was founded in July 2005 by a group of community leaders with a vision of creating an event to promote + elevate Charleston's culinary brand. The goal was to put Charleston on the map as a culinary destination, with a reputation rivaling other well-known food + dining destinations, and to bring national and international attention to the city. To do so, the organization would create a wine + food festival that would attract affluent visitors to the city who would return to Charleston throughout the year to help drive the city's economic engine by staying in our hotels, dining in our restaurants, and otherwise spending money locally. (Continued on Schedule O)The Festival was strategically timed to create visitor demand in Charleston during a time of year normally not popular for tourism. Since the first festival debuted in 2006, it has grown into a five-day event featuring 90+ unique individual events taking place across the greater Charleston area. Festival programming showcases the stories, culture, and history of Charleston's cuisine, waterways, and its people through the production of a variety of events ranging in size and style. In the spirit of collaboration and continued learning for our local culinary + hospitality community, the festival courts top chefs, winemakers, authors, storytellers, artisans, and food enthusiasts from around the globe to visit Charleston and participate in the event. It has been acclaimed both nationally and internationally as one of the most prestigious wine + food festivals and one that chef + beverage professionals seek to gain an invitation to year-after-year. Since its inception, the festival has welcomed over 455,000 attendees and generated $210.7 million in economic impact. As Charleston Wine + Food continues to grow through 20 years of serving the Lowcountry region, the organization has expanded its reach beyond the festival. Charleston Wine + Food advances culinary education and workforce development, provides stipends to culinary and hospitality professionals to underwrite festival participation and reduce barriers to entry, and delivers year-round industry-focused programming, in addition to producing its multi-day national festival.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 64% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 13
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 83.7%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 85.9%; rating input score 86; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.3%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 4.34; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.6%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 83.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $151K · 14 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.