Preservation Society of Asheville & Buncombe County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 591768097
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Asheville, NC, USA
- Phone
- 8282542343
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies & Historic Preservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,185,598
- Expenses
- $701,707
- Assets
- $2,434,416
- Liabilities
- $9,077
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jessie Landl (Executive Director)
- Josi Ward (President)
- Dale Slusser (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Jessie Landl (Executive Director): $84,316 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To conserve Asheville and Buncombe Countys heritage and sense of place through preservation and promotion of the regions historic resources. We are working to keep Asheville a unique and desirable city by retaining the character of our community in five key ways: -Preservation Grants to support preservation, education and designation projects. -Preservation Easements and Advocacy to protect endangered properties. -Technical Support for owners of historic properties. -Hosting the Griffin Awards to recognize projects that have utilized a preservation ethic. -Preservation Education Programs to inform the community about our shared history.
What it reported doing in 2024
Preservation Grants: The Preservation Society of Asheville & Buncombe County (PSABC) funds deserving initiatives in three categories: 1. BRICKS-AND-MORTAR Rehabilitation, restoration, and repair of structures that are 50 years of age or older. 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION Development of educational materials and programs that advance knowledge of our shared history. 3. PLANNING, SURVEY, AND DESIGNATION Planning and design for building rehabilitation and restoration projects, historic resource surveys, and local or national designations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 78
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $31.95 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 52.9%; rating input score 53; 30th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 40.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.47; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22.5% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $617K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $84K · 17 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $458K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.