Highlands Biological Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
560634513
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Highlands, NC, USA
Phone
8285262221
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$824,480
Expenses
$658,933
Assets
$4,660,488
Liabilities
$5,795

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jamie Creola (Executive Director)
  • Tom Holmes (President)
  • David Martin (Vice-President)
  • John Mitchner (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jamie Creola (Executive Director): $112,636 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To actively promote and support biological research and education in the Southern Appalachians.

What it reported doing in 2025

HBF hosts year-round environmental education programming at the Highlands Nature Center (part of the Highlands Biological Station) and throughout the Highlands-Cashiers Plateau. In 2025, the Nature Center welcomed over 14,000 visitors - this represents over 14,000 opportunities to teach individuals how crucial the natural ecosystems of the Plateau are, especially for biodiversity, and inspire them to be good stewards of the natural world. The Nature Center attracts local and visiting families who seek nature-related programming and outdoor adventures. Many participate in HBFs highly anticipated nature camps and free, daily educational programs in the summer. HBFs Zahner Conservation Lectures bring in local and visiting adults seeking to learn from scientists, writers, artists, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
  • 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.4%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 51.7%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 45th 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; 64th 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: 20.1%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.07; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.1%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.4% of revenue deployed · 51.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $341K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 35 people listed
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 28/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.