San Antonio Conservation Society Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741664620
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- San Antonio, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2102246163
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $137,620
- Expenses
- $649,554
- Assets
- $7,452,007
- Liabilities
- $953,908
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MR LEWIS VETTER (PRESIDENT)
- MS KATE RUCKMAN (1ST VICE PRESIDENT)
- MRS PATRICIA SEIDENBERGER (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
- MRS VIRGINIA G VAN CLEAVE (3RD VICE PRESIDENT)
- MS LISA PIERCE (4TH VICE PRESIDENT)
- MS DOLORES GUZMAN-FARIAS (5TH VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- MR VINCENT MICHAEL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $142,099 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To preserve and to encourage the preservation of historic buildings, objects, places and customs relating to the history of Texas, its natural beauty and all that is admirably distinctive to Texas; and by such physical and cultural preservation to keep the history of Texas legible and intact to educate the public, especially the youth of today and tomorrow, with knowledge of our inherited regional values. To receive and maintain a fund or funds of real or personal property, or both, and to use and apply the whole or any part of the income therefrom and the principal thereof exclusively for charitable, religious, scientific, literary or educational purposes either directly or by contributions to similar exempt organizations.
What it reported doing in 2024
Various expenses incurred to carry out the historical purpose of the society, including grants for historic restoration, review of items coming before the local preservation office, conducting surveys of historic buildings, conducting tours and seminars about historic buildings and places, advocating for historic preservation on local, state and federal levels, providing reviews and structural analyses of at risk buildings, providing support to other preservation organizations.
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 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.
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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 85
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 84.3%; rating input score 84
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 84%; rating input score 84; 49th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -372%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.47; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 27 of 27 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $547K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 28 people listed
- Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.