Asbury Park Historical Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 223812489
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Asbury Park, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 7323610189
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $63,802
- Expenses
- $56,297
- Assets
- $356,910
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KAY HARRIS (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- KAY HARRIS (PRESIDENT)
- JAMES HENRY (VP-LEGAL AFF)
- ANDY SKOKOS (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the asbury park historical society is to advance the understanding, appreciation, preservation and restoration of anything of historical value to the city of asbury park, New Jersey
What it reported doing in 2024
Advancing the understanding, appreciation, preservation and restoration of anything of historical value to the city of asbury park, nj
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 40
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 38.4%; rating input score 38
- Program expense ratio: 41.9%; rating input score 42
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.8%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.34; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 31.9% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -20.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 38.4% of revenue deployed · 41.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $24K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 38/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.