Danner Charitable Institution Trust C/o Texas State Bank Trustee

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
756382506
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
San Angelo, TX, USA
Phone
3259447536
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,825
Expenses
$17,295
Assets
$367,168
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

People named in this filing

  • TEXAS STATE BANK (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the trust is to aid and encourage financially the development, restoration, preservation, maintenance, and exhibition of historical facts, data, documents, relics and buildings of historical significance or interest for logan county, Illinois, and all counties contiguous thereto, and especially those pertaining to the history of mt. Pulaski, Illinois.

What it reported doing in 2025

This trust, in furtherance of it's exempt purpose, provides periodically, as needed, grants to the mt. Pulaski library district for the purpose of purchasing shelving, display cases and yearbook supplies to aid in exhibition of historical facts, data and documents of historical significance or interest for logan county, Illinois, and all counties contiguous thereto, and especially those pertaining to the history of mt. Pulaski, Illinois.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and total assets are large relative to annual expenses, but may not be spendable cash. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 21.23; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.