The District Czech Village & New Bohemia

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271416767
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Cedar Rapids, IA, USA
Phone
3192001201
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$189,762
Expenses
$178,101
Assets
$103,248
Liabilities
$8,315

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DEAN SPINA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JULIE PARISI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ERNST (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JENNIFER BORCHERDING (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $50,255 total reported compensation
  • HAILEY ROSENDAHL (PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $8,005 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To encourage growth and promote preservation by working together toward a shared vision through implementation of the main street four-point approach.

What it reported doing in 2025

Promote and support czech village / new bohemia urban main street district as a vibrant urban neighborhood model for historic preservation and economic development in the midwest. Support the destination for both residents and visitors. Building on its unique history, the district is a dynamic arts and culture venue that will provide interesting, authentic and enriching experiences with a variety of shopping, dining, arts and cultural entertainment opportunities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 62% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 88.3%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.58; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.8% of revenue deployed · 88.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $157K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.