Mount Washington Valley Preservation Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201717225
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2022
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2022
Location
North Conway, NH, USA
Phone
6033565701
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,163
Expenses
$69,337
Assets
$25,307
Liabilities
$377

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KEVIN FLYNN (DIRECTOR)
  • JESSICA WRIGHT (DIRECTOR)
  • ANNA PEARE (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Enhance, protect, and preserve the traditional new england villages of the mount Washington valley

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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.8%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 13

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -26.5% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.1% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.8% of revenue deployed · 13.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2015 to 2022
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.