Historic Fredericksburg Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546052358
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Fredericksburg, VA, USA
Phone
5403714504
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$231,879
Expenses
$274,085
Assets
$3,213,005
Liabilities
$303

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David James (President)
  • Scott Walker (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • David James (President)
  • Scott Walker (Vice President)
  • Nancy Moore (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the historic fredericskburg foundation inc is to preserve, protect, and revitalize the distinctive historic enviroment and cultural resouces of the fredericksburg area. Historic fredericksburg foundation inc accomplishes this mission through education, adovacy, and

What it reported doing in 2025

Represents the public interest through its members in protecting histroic and clutural resources throughout the fredericksburg region through easement, research, and histroic marker programs. Staff and volunteers assist individuals, institutions and local governments in evaluation and protecting valuable historic resources. Community events and publications educate the public and increase awareness and appreciation of the rich cultural history of the fredericksburg area.

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: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.7%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 38.7%; rating input score 39
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -18.2%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.72; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.7% of revenue deployed · 38.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $106K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.