Friends of the Hunley Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582345821
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
North Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437434865
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$775,226
Expenses
$788,114
Assets
$1,217,335
Liabilities
$688,098

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN HAZZARD (V.PRESIDENT/TREASURER)
  • KELLEN BUTLER (PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLEN BUTLER (PRESIDENT/SECRETARY): $8,000 total reported compensation
  • JOHN HAZZARD (V.PRESIDENT/TREASURER): $5,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To procure, manage, and expend charitable donations for the raising, restoration, preservation, and display of the h. L. Hunley submarine andrelated artifacts.

What it reported doing in 2025

Friends of the hunley, inc. (foth) procures donations and raises funds to support the conservation and display of the civil war submarine, h.l. Hunley, and its associated artifacts. Foth manages public tours of the submarine, given by volunteers. The tours are educational and provide the history of the submarine, the technology employed for itssuccess, and the science of its conservation. Foth also manages hunley-related merchandise sales via a physical store and an on-line web store. Foth offers a membership program which generates revenue as well as provides knowledge about the submarine through a newsletter and access to special features on foth website but does not provide any additional benefits as members. All proceeds from tours, merchandise sales, and memberships are used to conserve and display the submarine and artifacts.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.8%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.57; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.8% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $445K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $8K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $471K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.