Preservation of Historic Winchester Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237404958
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Winchester, VA, USA
Phone
5406673577
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$70,125
Expenses
$56,529
Assets
$927,455
Liabilities
$489

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BEN FORD (PRESIDENT)
  • ANNE WALKER SCHROTH (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • WENDY KEDZIERSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WENDY KEDZIERSKI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $26,425 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Preservation of historic winchester, inc., organized by concerned members of the community and incorporated under the laws of the commonwealth of Virginia, exists for the purpose of safeguarding the heritage of the winchester and frederick county community and for assuring a quality of life for tomorrow represented by the best of the area's past. To the end that this goal may be encouraged among the people, and the charm of their community maintained and improved, this organization shall, through a program of education, enlist support for and participate in the preservation, restoration and ownership of sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant to the cultural, social, political, economic, and architectural history of the winchester, Virginia area.the corporation shall be able to receive easements and place covenants on properties that are of historic and/or architectural value or which significantly influence properties of historical and/or architectural value.

What it reported doing in 2024

Providing preservation guidance, sponsoring educational lectures and hosting special membership events throughout the year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87.6%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 63.2%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 78%; rating input score 78; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 19.4%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.41; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 46.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87.6% of revenue deployed · 63.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.