Howard County Historical Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526056320
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Ellicott City, MD, USA
Phone
4104803250
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$258,266
Expenses
$237,360
Assets
$1,513,259
Liabilities
$3,997

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN BENNETT (Executive Director)
  • MARK STOUT (Executive Director)
  • RITA HAMLET (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANN BENNETT (Executive Director): $61,828 total reported compensation
  • MARK STOUT (Executive Director): $11,372 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 collect, preserve, and share the diverse history of all the peoples of Howard County Maryland.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Executive Director, 2 museum staff, 3 office/archives staff provide wages that directly support all mission-related activities. Staff responsibilities include conducting and supporting research services for internal projects as well as outside patrons, designing and maintaining exhibits, compiling and editing the Legacy publication delivering outreach presentations, serving on commissions and community stakeholder groups, preparing grant submissions and reports, managing social media and marketing, and facilitating public programs and events. Staff also manage open hours, rentals, and events, including set-up, visitor check-in, and project coordination across all 4 facilities.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 8.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.38; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78% of revenue deployed · 82% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $195K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $62K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.