Culture and Heritage Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570959077
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Rock Hill, SC, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,070
Expenses
$61,748
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • William K Easley (President)
  • Gary Williams (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Suzie Wright (Director)
  • Larry W Carroll (Director)
  • William K Easley (President)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the Foundation is to operate for the benefit of museums, historic sites, nature conservancies, cultural facilities, and similar entities offering cultural and/or educational opportunities to South Carolina citizens by raising, investing, managing and disbursing money and other assets. The Foundation may develop, amend, or restate guidelines from time to time in order to implement effectively the aforesaid purposes; however, the Foundation shall always be operated for the benefit of museums, historic sites, nature conservancies, cultural facilities, and similar entities offering cultural and/or educational opportunities to South Carolina citizens.

What it reported doing in 2017

Set up a capital fund for long term benefit of Culture and Heritage Museums

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 8
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -513.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd 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: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -21.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 4 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.