DANEnet Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391820882
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082743107
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$807,386
Expenses
$723,555
Assets
$484,915
Liabilities
$44,132

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deanna Schneider (President)
  • Martin Alvarado (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Shawn Steen (Executive Dir.): $105,882 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To make information technology accessible and affordable through education and services for nonprofit organizations an individuals with barriers to access

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, DANEnet provided professional, affordable IT consulting, training, support, and maintenance to 150 nonprofit organizations in Dane County, totaling over 5,700 tech support service hours. DANEnet's Digital Equity Project leveraged partnerships with nonprofit agencies and their direct service providers (social worekrs, caseworkers, educators, and healthcare providers) to identify adults, elders, and families from low-income households without working computers or essential computer skills. Through these referrals, over 500 free refurbished donated laptops were distributed to households without computers and assistance identifying affordable internet programs. We also dedicated over 2,000 hours to providing free basic computer skills classes and tech support to laptop recipients and other community members from low-income households, both online and in-person at local community/senior centers

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 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.96 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.4%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.4% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $558K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $106K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.