Webb County Heritage Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742096498
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Laredo, TX, USA
- Phone
- 9567270977
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $301,376
- Expenses
- $264,487
- Assets
- $355,045
- Liabilities
- $17,845
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- John Kilburn (President)
- Maria Eugenia Calderon-Porter (Vice-President)
- James Moore (Second Vice-President)
- Alison Hadley (Third Vice-President)
People named in this filing
- John Kilburn (President)
- Maria Eugenia Calderon-Porter (Vice-President)
- James Moore (Second Vice-President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Webb County Heritage Foundation seeks to raise awareness and appreciation of Webb county's heritage by advocating the protection and preservation of historic architecture, ranching heritage, and cultural traditions, customs, and folklore of the border region through heritage education and heritage tourism.
What it reported doing in 2024
1st Exempt Purpose Accomplishment - Archives - This extensive collection is a vital resource catering to adiverse audience, including the general public, researchers, genealogists, students, tourists, travel writers, professional and aspiring writers, as well as media professionals spanning television, cinema, and documentaries. Visitors are welcomed to explore this comprehensive repository of regional history. Accessiblethrough our cutting-edge digital archives, the WCHF invites exploration and discovery, encouraging individualsto submit research requests to visit our dedicated research center.
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.
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: 49
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 56
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.7%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.2%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.34; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.7% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 52.7% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $162K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 24 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 53/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.