Dayton Tech Town Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
310925683
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dayton, OH, USA
Phone
9378532551
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$307,279
Expenses
$589,257
Assets
$3,715,523
Liabilities
$1,683,082

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANIEL KANE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL KANE (PRESIDENT): $270,174 total reported compensation
  • KAREN DEMASI (ASSISTANT SECRETARY): $172,744 total reported compensation
  • SHANE WILKEN (VP LENDING & DEVELOPMENT FINANCE): $170,948 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 support the attraction and growth of high technology business into and promote technology commercialization in the city of dayton.

What it reported doing in 2025

Dayton tech town offers a unique technology support system that encourages collaboration, business acceleration, and technology commercialization. Tech town strengthens dayton's role as a technology leader and the campus is designed to attract knowledge-based workers to the city and to the region. A campus master plan has been created to incorporate enchanced urban design standards to better integrate with the surrounding innovation district. The plan promotes pedestrian friendly activities and connections.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 84% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -91.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.31; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.45; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.8%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $498K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $270K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.