Wnc Bridge Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562110357
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Asheville, NC, USA
Phone
8282774815
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$11,836,735
Expenses
$9,097,750
Assets
$128,597,202
Liabilities
$3,891,263

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT W BUCHANAN (CEO & PRESIDENT)
  • JESSICA BENTLEY (VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT W BUCHANAN (CEO & PRESIDENT): $259,559 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA BENTLEY (VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCE): $137,284 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Wnc bridge foundation exists to connect our communities to a healthier future and to create lasting change through local partnerships. Our efforts are focused on expanding access and equity for vulnerable populations in our communities.we are a community-based charitable organization that works to provide funds to support and assist in meeting the many health challenges that face the people of wnc. We provide direct support and also empower carefully selected non-profits to impact individual and community wellness in our communities throughout the wnc region.

What it reported doing in 2024

Wnc bridge foundation invested $4,299,378 in grants and community initiatives in the eighteen counties of western North Carolina.-$13,874 in safe housing and food insecurity (aim grants)-$844,208 in additional wnc bridge community initiatives (rathbun house, you're special fund, children's services fund, health scholarships and wnc greatest needs, hurricane helene relief)-$992,406 in now grant funding for non-profits to obtain quick funding and funding for hurricane relief-$290,094 in scholarships for high school students and sponsorships for non-profit fundraisers

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 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.1%; rating input score 98; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 29th 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: 23.1%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.14; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 53.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $260K · 24 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $924K reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 140 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 138 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: Program expense ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 5/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.