Durant Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421324829
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Durant, IA, USA
Phone
5637854441
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$14,045
Expenses
$938
Assets
$1,294,236
Liabilities
$535,300

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN ALPEN (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAN ALPEN (PRESIDENT)
  • TOM COMPTON (DIRECTOR)
  • DELMAR FRICK (DIRECTOR)

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

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

Overview

Mission

The durant development corporation was established with the purpose to encourage, assist, maintain, and develop in and for the city of durant and surrounding area, industrial and business projects of such character as will enlarge employment opportunities and aid the growth and development of the city of durant and the surrounding area. The organization does this through the following activities: 1. Researching and locating desirable new businesses for establishment and development in durant. Presenting our community as a good place for the companies to locate or expand. We accomplish this by gathering information about infrastructure, site availability and pricing, comparative wage scales and similar facts about our community to present to development prospects. This work is done by volunteer board members. 2. Attempting to bring available land under control so we can market the land to prospects at an attractive price. We accomplish this by researching available land, and negotiating

What it reported doing in 2025

The durant development corporation was created for marketing the city of durant as a good place for a company to locate and expand. The organization works together with durant city officials to gather and collate information regarding infrastructure, site availability and pricing, comparative wage scales and similar facts about the durant community to present to industrial development prospects. The organization also works with city officials to bring available land under control so they can market the land to prospects at an attractive price as opposed to dealing with inflated prices that individual landowners might charge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 4
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0.6%; rating input score 1
  • Program expense ratio: 9.1%; rating input score 9
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 93.3%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1,379.78; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -18.8% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0.6% of revenue deployed · 9.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $85 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 1/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.