John Marsh Historic Trust Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
680390601
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Brentwood, CA, USA
Phone
5105080094
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$24,393
Expenses
$12,264
Assets
$61,182
Liabilities
$298

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Barry Margesson (President)

People named in this filing

  • Barry Margesson (President)
  • Robert H Jones (Treasurer)
  • Miranda Harmon-Smith (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

1) Preservation & restoration of the historic John Marsh Stone House, in Brentwood, Contra Costa County, California, located within the Marsh Creek State Historic Park.2) Pursue opportunities to share the John Marsh history, his origins, his journey west and settlement in Contra Costa County, his participation in the drive for California statehood.

What it reported doing in 2025

Conducted hike in the Eastern Hills of the park. Included a tour around the Stone House and an update on our Interpretive Center project.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

MIXED - 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: 13
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.5%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 18.9%; rating input score 19

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 49.7%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.99; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -13.6% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.5% of revenue deployed · 18.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.