The Glass-glen Burnie Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
731267576
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
San Antonio, TX, USA
Phone
2108449637
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$7,181,916
Expenses
$4,976,630
Assets
$51,566,185
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JENNIFER PEACE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID HO ROTH (CO-OPERATING TRUSTEE): $136,500 total reported compensation
  • ALLAN G PATERSON (CO-OPERATING TRUSTEE): $136,500 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER PEACE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $95,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the glass-glen burnie foundation (the "foundation") is exclusively charitable and educational, specifically to restore, maintain, and support the historic properties and grounds that the foundation owns in the vicinity of winchester, Virginia for educational and public benefit and to endow a museum that includes 18th and early 19th century american and english art along with additions made to the collections. The foundation fulfills its mission through the creation and continuing support of the glass-glen burnie museum, inc. (doing business as the museum of the shenandoah valley) (the "msv"), which operates a museum on the foundation's winchester property that provides a wide variety of galleries, exhibitions, and educational programs, cares for the foundation's historic properties and grounds, operates a 90-acre art park on the grounds, and preserves the largest green space and only working farm in the city of winchester.

What it reported doing in 2024

The foundation continued the support of the museum of the shenandoah valley, its supported organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 72% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 88% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 voting board members are independent and some related-organization disclosures are missing.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 42
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 30.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.36; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $4.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $136K · 7 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $112K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.