The Atoka Preservation Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541799764
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2014, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Middleburg, VA, USA
Phone
5406875971
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$-201,734
Expenses
$22,466
Assets
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Jacquelyn Gammons (Director)
  • Guy W Beakley (Director)
  • Stephen McVeigh (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To acquire, own, restore and preserve the historic Rector House of Rector's Crossroads, now called Atoka, Virginia, so that the organization may educate the public and promote an appreciation of history by preserving, promoting and fostering the historic, architectural, cultural, natural character, qualities and resources of the area in and around Atoka, Virginia.

What it reported doing in 2015

To provide access to public space within the Angus Brown House for meetings and lectures concerning the historical, architectural, cultural or natural resources of the area. Also, to provide office space in the Angus Brown House for other non-profit organizations whose objectives are to preserve, conserve, or promote the historical, architectural, cultural or natural resources in and around Atoka, Virginia, or whose objectives will otherwise benefit the Atoka area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 33
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 10
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -111.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: -18.7% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $20K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2014 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.