Clara M Mixter Higher Education Trust 005760

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
166492076
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oneonta, NY, USA
Phone
6074334122
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Named Trusts N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$124,308
Expenses
$51,262
Assets
$1,294,275
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This trust was created to assist graduates of the richfield springs ny central school who wish to pursue education as a career by granting scholarships.

What it reported doing in 2025

College scholarships for students of the richfield springs cs who wish to pursue education as a career. Clara mixter was a teacher there for over thirty years.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 83
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.5%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 73.9%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 59.6%; rating input score 60; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: Limited
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.8%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 25.25; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.5% of revenue deployed · 73.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 1 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.