The Fort Meigs Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272083636
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Perrysburg, OH, USA
Phone
4198744121
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$546,780
Expenses
$590,262
Assets
$1,127,954
Liabilities
$5,244

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY PHILIPOT BROCK (EXECUTIVE DI): $66,406 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The fort meigs association, in cooperation with the Ohio historical society, manages the daily operations, educational programs, preservation and maintenance of fort meigs state memorial. Our mission is to connect people to the history of Ohio, especially as it relates to the war of 1812, early settlement, and ohioan's roles in conflict, in order to understand the present and create a better future.

What it reported doing in 2025

60 years war for Ohio: american revolution invites visitors to step back to the very beginnings of the nation and experience the struggle for independence as it unfolded in Ohio in the 18th century. Visitors encounter loyalists and continental soldiers drilling on the parade ground, musket and artillery demonstrations, and engaging conversations about the ideals and uncertainties that defined the revolutionary era. Civilians demonstrate period crafts, cooking, and trade, offering a glimpse into how ordinary people supported the war effort.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.2%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $129.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • 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: -8%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.91; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.2% of revenue deployed · 47.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $282K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $66K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.