Amador County Historical Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942920481
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Jackson, CA, USA
Phone
2092571485
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$291,835
Expenses
$209,380
Assets
$416,058
Liabilities
$25,055

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Teresa Guidi (President)
  • Sue Duncan (Vice-President)

People named in this filing

  • Teresa Guidi (President)
  • Sue Duncan (Vice-President)
  • Judy Jebian (Secretary)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Society was founded to solicit acquire preserve disseminate and provide access to a collection of artifacts historical paper photos ephemera and miscellany of Amador County history. Through operation of the County Museum newsletter public events website and other media. And will encourage citizen education and support of historical preservation.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Historical Society of Amador County operates a website and phone lines to offer information and enhance communication with the public regarding historical events and artifacts specific to Amador County California. Their services encompass a quarterly Newsletter that highlights historical narratives related to the county along with information on public events showcasing historical speakers and experts. This initiative aims to engage the community in the rich history of Amador County by providing accessible resources and opportunities for learning and participation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 97% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 65
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 70.8%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: $138.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 28.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 61% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 70.8% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $205K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $165K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 41 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.