Rotary Club of Asheville- Biltmore Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
843160142
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
7032169846
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$261,664
Expenses
$215,105
Assets
$59,697
Liabilities
$32,400

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Johannes (President)
  • Eric Nichols (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Richard Johannes (President)
  • Vance Yoder (Secretary)
  • Eric Nichols (Vice President)

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

Fundraising for Asheville-Biltmore Rotary Club and disbursement of proceeds to qualified 501(c)3 organizations. Receipt of and disbursement of grants for specified charities and disaster releif. Donating to qualified 501(C)3 organizations in honor of speakers at club meetings.

What it reported doing in 2024

Veterans Restoration Quarters (VRQ); a division of Asheville Buncombe County Christian Ministries (ABCCM); provides housing, meals, training, and supprt services to homeless veterans. Several hundred veterans are supported by this charity.The VRQ facility was also destroyed by Hurricane Helene. These grants include $63,590 in grants toward rebuilding in addition to $1,550 in support of VRQ's routine operations.Of the total grants of $65,140; $32,740 has already been disbursed, and $32,400 is counted as a liability (accounts payable) since it will be expended later this year. The delay in that spending was because VRQ was waiting for FEMA approval of some of the rebuiling efforts toward which that grant was directed.

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 - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 17.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 36.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 60.4% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.2% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $212K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.