Dallas County Heritage Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
756057722
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dallas, TX, USA
Phone
2145000689
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$257,576
Expenses
$340,540
Assets
$2,690,713
Liabilities
$193,753

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MICHAEL MEADOWS-THRU 1024 (INTERIM CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH CRAIN (COO): $76,694 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL MEADOWS-THRU 1024 (INTERIM CEO): $72,450 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of old city park conservancy is to advocate for and provide support to old city park so that visitors can connect with the past, inspire the future, and celebrate dallass rich diversity in dallass first and oldest public park.with our contract to manage the park having ended in may 2024, we added conservancy to our operating name, indicating our intention to continue to support the park. The park and recreation department, which now operates the park, has undertaken to create a new master plan for the park. Once the new plan is approved, we will evaluate how we can best support that plan. In the meantime, we are working with park staff to support the events and programming they are developing for the park and to support the beautification of the park.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization continued its longstanding role of supporting stewardship of the park by hosting volunteer clean-up and gardening activities on the first Saturday of most months. In addition, the organization intends to fund future park improvement projects.

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 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.3%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $14.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -32.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.9; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 43.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.3% of revenue deployed · 59.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $202K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 26 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.