Knoxville History Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472675784
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Knoxville, TN, USA
- Phone
- 8653132047
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $323,431
- Expenses
- $260,294
- Assets
- $489,035
- Liabilities
- $14,677
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- PROFESSOR PAT RUTENBERG (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- DAN BROWN (DIRECTOR)
- CHARLES FELS (DIRECTOR)
- MARK HEINZ (VICE PRESIDE)
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 knoxville history project is to research and promote the history and culture of knoxville, Tennessee. The knoxville history projects (khp) stories, programs, and publications both educate and help residents and visitors understand the citys past, as well as its complicated but dynamic heritage, and to gain an appreciation for the citys culture. Khp also conducts historical research on buildings and places. The organizations biggest single project, the knoxville mercury newspaper, launched in 2015 ceased production in july 2017. Remaining assets from the mercury were sold in 2017 and early 2018 including balance of notes payable in the amount of 100,000 (shown as capital gain/loss) which resulted in cancellation of indebtedness income. Following the closure of the mercury, khp has continues to focus its mission entirely educational programs described above.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 65% 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
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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 62
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 57.9%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 70.3%; rating input score 70
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 19.5%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.88; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 57.9% of revenue deployed · 70.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $183K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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 58/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.