White River Valley Historical Society Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431650276
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Forsyth, MO, USA
Phone
4175462210
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$168,677
Expenses
$203,947
Assets
$316,115
Liabilities
$2,886

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JACKIE ADAMS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DUSTAN S INGENTHRON (JOURNAL EDITOR & WEBMASTER): $24,199 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA L TRIMBLE (MANAGING DIRECTOR): $22,610 total reported compensation
  • TOMMY ROBERTS (ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT): $13,627 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 white river valley historical society protects, preserves, and promotes the cultural history of the upper white river valley, concentrating on taney county, Missouri.

What it reported doing in 2025

The white river valley historical society provides two area locations that display exhibits which depict the culture of the early settlers in taney county. These exhibits portray time related living conditions, artifacts, and the commercial aspects of the time periods. These exhibits are restyled periodically in order to provide a broader based education to area residents and visitors. Gift shops sell books and memorabilia depicting the history of early taney county. The forsyth location houses an extensive research library which is open to the public and all academia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 96.9%; rating input score 97
  • Program expense ratio: 77.6%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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; 64th 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -20.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.55; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 96.9% of revenue deployed · 77.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $158K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $24K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.