Utah Heritage Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
870272392
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
8015330858
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$344,820
Expenses
$299,539
Assets
$1,986,585
Liabilities
$257,150

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDY STRAND (EXECUTIVE DI): $77,447 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 organization's mission is to keep the past alive, not only for preservation, but to inspire and provoke a more creative present and sustainable future.

What it reported doing in 2024

Education & advocacy preservation utahs advocacy and education programs are at the heart of our mission to protect and celebrate utahs architectural and historical treasures. We work with elected officials, administrators, and property owners to promote preservation-oriented public policies, support relevant legislation, and develop creative, sustainable solutions. Our efforts go beyond protecting buildingswe strive to preserve the stories, culture, and history that define Utah. We educate the public about the states historic built environment and cultural resources through lectures, tours, and cultural events. By actively engaging the community, we empower individuals and groups to take ownership of their local heritage, ensuring that preservation efforts resonate across generations. Our annual preservation conference is utahs premier gathering for preservation professionals, technical experts, students, property owners, and the public. It provides a unique opportunity to network, learn, and collaborate on the future of historic preservation in our state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 27th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.1%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.63; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 48.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 38 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 21/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.