Wichita County Heritage Society Dba Kell House Heritage Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
751575382
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Wichita Falls, TX, USA
Phone
9407230623
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Reported finances

Revenue
$340,597
Expenses
$126,871
Assets
$1,517,228
Liabilities
$3,411

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA PATRICK (Vice President)
  • MARY DRAPER (President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DELORES CULLEY (Executive Direc): $37,400 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Inspire and educate the community to engage in preservation through the kell house heritage center.

What it reported doing in 2024

Historic preservation-the organization continues to operate and care for the kell house museum in order to preserve it for future generations. At over 110 years old, this historic home and its grounds require ongoing maintenance and repairs in order to preserve this local treasure. The organization also encourages historic preservation by recognizing those who have preserved historic structures in wichita county and provides representation on the city's landmark commission.community events - the organization hosts numerous public events during the year to draw attention and interest in this historic home. The two largest are santa house and the 4th of july celebration. The historic home is also available for rent for private parties and functions.education - the organization continues to provide educational events and activities aimed toward educating the public about the kell house museum, the kell family, as well as the local community through guided tours, special exhibits, living history days for local schools etc. It also supports the eduction and training for the rehabilitation of local Texas historical markers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 65% 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 - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.5%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 60.5%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.88 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.96; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -25.7% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 20.5% of revenue deployed · 60.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $37K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.