Westminster-canterbury of the Blue Ridge Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541882970
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charlottesville, VA, USA
Phone
4349723170
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,850,653
Expenses
$630,133
Assets
$28,669,939
Liabilities
$211,321

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GARY B SELMECZI (CEO/PRESIDENT(UNTIL 9/2024))
  • TYLER S KENDALL (CEO/PRESIDENT(AS OF 7/2024))

Highest reported compensation

  • GARY B SELMECZI (CEO/PRESIDENT(UNTIL 9/2024)): $519,271 total reported compensation
  • ANNA D BUCHANAN (CFO/TREASURER): $341,513 total reported compensation
  • TYLER S KENDALL (CEO/PRESIDENT(AS OF 7/2024)): $266,251 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of westminster-canterbury of the blue ridge foundation (wcbrf) is to support, benefit, and enhance the well-being and quality of life of the residents and associates of westminster-canterbury of the blue ridge.

What it reported doing in 2024

During fiscal year 2025, the foundation provided more than $29,000 in associate support to include emergency assistance, a food pantry, and reward and recognition for associates of wcbr.the foundation's thomas education and workforce development fund provided over $65,000 in educational financial assistance and over $36,000 in student loan repayment funds to wcbr associates in fiscal year 2025.see schedule othe foundation's health and well-being across the continuum fund provided approximately $124,000 in fiscal year 2025 for innovative and best-practice solutions to health and well-being needs. Offerings included specialized fitness classes; stimulating social, cultural, art, and performance activities; lifelong learning educational classes; a comprehensive library; spiritual care; recreational, music, and art therapy; and much more. This fund also provided flexible support to address new or changing high priority needs so we can best care for our residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.8%; rating input score 93; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 44.4%; rating input score 44; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 45.5; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.1%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 41.2% of revenue deployed · 56.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 9 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $353K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $519K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 41/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 44/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 53/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.