Naco Heritage Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271039885
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Naco, AZ, USA
Phone
5204329031
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,350
Expenses
$2,908
Assets
$51,990
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Margaret Hangan (Board President)
  • Jesus Rosendo Arrieta (Board Vice President/President Elect)
  • Jeremy Fricke (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Margaret Hangan (Board President)
  • Jesus Rosendo Arrieta (Board Vice President/President Elect)
  • Kevin Smith (Board 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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Historic preservation and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Camp Naco Visitor Experience: NHA is working with an exhibit design consultant and a multitude of volunteers and content experts to design, fabricate, and install exhibits within the Camp Naco site that speak to the multitude of histories embodied within. This also includes the development of the tour/site experience and a mobile application integration. Once the site is open and accessible to the public (expected December 2025), the estimated impact includes a potential 13,000 visitors per year to the area and a total potential economic impact of approximately $1.4 million, creating and supporting about 15 ongoing jobs (according to "Potential Economic Impact of Preserving and Rehabilitating Camp Naco," by Robert Carreira, Ph.D., June, 2022).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 94.2%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.88; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • 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 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.