National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the State of Sc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570324928
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437223767
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$520,859
Expenses
$496,516
Assets
$1,986,643
Liabilities
$272,949

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANGELYN BRIDGES (PRESIDENT)
  • PAM PEARCE (THIRD VICE PRESIDENT)
  • AGNES ASMAN (FOURTH VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARTHA KENT (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY WESTON (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CAROLINE FITZGERALD (ASSOCIATE TRUSTEE FOR SULGRAVE MANOR)
  • ELIZABETH BAUCOM (GREENVILLE TC CHAIR)
  • ANGELYN BRIDGES (PRESIDENT)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The national society of the colonial dames of america in the state of South Carolina is dedicated to furthering knowledge and appreciation of our colonial/national heritage through historic preservation, patriotic service, and educational projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

The nscda-sc annually provides many educational awards related to colonial history & education. This year 6 "teaching of history" scholarships were awarded to college students majoring in history. A summer internship was funded for a student at our museum, awards were given for veteran's programs in sc and for state & regional history related programs. On the national level, the society contributed to an american indian medical scholarship for a medical student. The organization provides annual contributions to historic properties (dumbarton, gunston hall, & sulgrave manor) owned or supported by our national organization (4,750) & to sc exempt organizations whose missions align with our mission (2,850). We honor program speakers with contributions to exempt organizations connected to their topic (1,100).

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 70.1%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5,473.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 60.5%; rating input score 60; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.7%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 70.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $348K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 30 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 25 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.