Sheboygan County Aviation Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391941963
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Sheboygan Falls, WI, USA
Phone
9204672043
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,548
Expenses
$124,093
Assets
$963,539
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Glenn Valenstein (President)
  • Dave Rudd (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Glenn Valenstein (President)
  • Paul Walter (Director)
  • Michael Brotz (Director)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See page 2 Part III, 4a.

What it reported doing in 2025

The mission of the Aviation Heritage Center of Wisconsin is to preserve the aviation history of Wisconsin and the legacy of unique episodes in civil and military aviation via archiving and public exhibits. In addition, aviation education programs encourage young people to pursue careers in aviation related fields. The center is a 501 C3 nonprofit organization governed by a board of directors. The President manages the ordinary activities. The center is southeastern Wisconsins only aviation center and serves a population region of more than 1 million people. Visitors come to view indoor and outdoor aviation exhibits, experience antique and military aircraft in flight, meet their pilots, and are exposed to aviation veterans of all Americam wars from WWII through the Gulf wars. The Centers flagship events include a five day T-28 (a former military trainer and attack aircraft) clinic and flight demonstrations, and special aircraft retoration projects that honor former civilian and military aviators.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 69% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 55.5%; rating input score 55
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • 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: -73.4%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.76; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.4% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 55.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.