Hastings Historical Society

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237398459
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Hastingsonhudson, NY, USA
Phone
9144782249
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$61,515
Expenses
$68,927
Assets
$358,033

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NATALIE BARRY (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • SUZANNE SMITH (OFFICER)
  • JANET MURPHY (OFFICER)
  • NATALIE BARRY (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The society was formed to discover, procure, preserve and exhibit whatever may relate to the natural, civil, literary, economic and cultural history of the village of hastings-on-hudson, to establish and maintain collections in art, archaeology, economy etc. And to foster and maintain an awareness of and appreciation for the history of the village of hastings-on-hudson.

What it reported doing in 2025

Maintaining archives of and acquiring historical documents, primarily pertaining to the village and people of hastings-on-hudson.

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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.8%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 32.8%; rating input score 33

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.19; rating input score 84; 84th 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: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.8% of revenue deployed · 32.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.