Rebuild Hot Springs Area

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331646596
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hot Springs, NC, USA
Phone
8287823668
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Disaster Preparedness and Relief Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$377,915
Expenses
$166,714
Assets
$211,201
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TJ Phillips (President)
  • Mary Helen Adamson (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • TJ Phillips (President)
  • Mary Helen Adamson (Vice-President)
  • Benjamin Ray (Treasurer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rebuild Hot Springs Area is dedicated to providing relief and support to the residents, businesses, and community organizations of Hot Springs, NC, and surrounding areas in times of crisis. Our mission is to mobilize resources, collaborate with local partners, and ensure that the towns people and infrastructure receive the aid necessary to recover and thrive after natural disasters, economic challenges, and other hardships.

What it reported doing in 2024

Our mission is to mobilize resources, collaborate with local partners, and ensure that the towns people and infrastructure receive the aid necessary to recover and thrive after natural disasters, economic challenges, and other hardships. In 2024 the following support was given in response to Hurricane Helene: - 104 individuals received support after loss of employment. - 21 individuals received support to help with recovery from property damage. - 16 businesses received support to help with recovery from property damage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.3%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.2%; rating input score 86; 50th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: 55.9%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.27; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.3% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $164K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.