Cedar Hill West Bank Heritage Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463489979
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Leland, NC, USA
Phone
2158681286
Rating
37
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,355
Expenses
$4,976
Assets
$183,505
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Terri Everett (President)
  • REv Avery McCallister (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Terri Everett (President)
  • Kendra Bannerman (Secretary)
  • Pauline Robinson (Assistant 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cedar Hill West Bank Heritage Foundation was incorporated in 2013 as a 501 C 3 corporation to further enhance, devvelop and improve the cultural heritage of the Cedar Hill West Bank corridor with active community involvement. The foundation strives to preserve the history of the corridor, to be visible in our communities and to promote community involvemnt in sustaining the local heritage.

What it reported doing in 2025

Cedar Hill West Bank Heritage Foundation was incorporated in 2013 as a 501 c 3 corporation to further enhance, develop and improve the cultural heritage of the Cedar Hill West Bank corridor with active community involvement. The foundation strives to preserve the history of the corridor, to be visible in out communities and to promote community involvement in sustaining the local heritage.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -14.3%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 36.88; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -39.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.6% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.