Hunter Creek Historical Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
861726264
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Aspen, CO, USA
Phone
9703096770
Rating
32
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$280,389
Expenses
$110,573
Assets
$271,598
Liabilities
$1

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • I HOWELL MALLORY (CO-CHAIR)
  • GRAEME MEANS (CO-CHAIR)
  • GEORGE NEWMAN (Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Restoration and preservation of historical site

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 0
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.5%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 1
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.73 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • 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: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 60.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.46; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 45.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 61% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.5% of revenue deployed · 1.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $112K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.