Dana-thomas House Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371151109
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2010
Location
Springfield, IL, USA
Phone
2177889452
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies & Historic Preservation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$193,598
Expenses
$208,608
Assets
$1,434,527
Liabilities
$1,842

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TOM RYDER (PRESIDENT)
  • KENDRA FLOYD (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CINDA KLICKNA (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • REGINA ALBANESE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LEE-ANN BURGENER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REGINA ALBANESE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $47,377 total reported compensation
  • LEE-ANN BURGENER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $3,367 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 purpose of the dana-thomas house foundation is to promote citizen awareness of the architectural significance of the frank lloyd wright dana-thomas house historic site in springfield, Illinois, and to preserve and protect the house through promotion of special events, educational programs, acquisition of funds and properties, and to otherwise take any steps necessary to assure the continued care and preservation of the dana-thomas house as a historic site.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tours, education, and sumac gift shop selling historical merchandise and educational literature that enhances the public awareness, interest and appreciation of the house, its history, and frank lloyd wright architecture.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 69% for direct work, and 31% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.9%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -7.8%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.88; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.3%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $175K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.