Napa County Historical Society
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 942690901
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2014
- Location
- Napa, CA, USA
- Phone
- 4152357900
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies & Historic Preservation
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $705,499
- Expenses
- $264,950
- Assets
- $1,172,985
- Liabilities
- $182,410
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Kelly Wallace (President)
- Lisa Massaro (Vice-President)
- Brad Wagenknect (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Kaitlyn Scott Moxon (Executive Dir): $85,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Vision Statement: To be one of the premier county historical societies in America as measured by robust membership 1% of the county population financial sustainability and national and state recognition.Purpose & Mission: The purpose of the Napa County Historical Society is to discover and keep history alive through exhibits lectures and events as well as research publication and educational activities. As a membership and sponsorship-based archival and educational organization the Society is dedicated to the discovery preservation and presentation of the people and history of Napa County and its place in California history and the world.We must always strive to exceed the expectations of the community our members and our supporters to fulfill our purpose and achieve our vision. By doing so our leadership in the world of county historical societies is assured.Values Statement: The following values are guiding principles defining the NCHS operating template. They represent
What it reported doing in 2025
The organization conducts historic tours and events including historical exhibits tours and other events. Public assess to the library and museum materials is provided to the public.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 71% 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: 44
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 65
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 31.2%; rating input score 31
- Program expense ratio: 66.4%; rating input score 66
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 62.4%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.43; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 32.1%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 31.2% of revenue deployed · 66.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $176K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 15 people listed
- Consistency: 40 of 41 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.