Fort Douglas Military Museum Asso

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510143384
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phone
4358490070
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
History Museums

Reported finances

Revenue
$57,068
Expenses
$33,134
Assets
$1,533,625
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Edward Willis (President)
  • Bryce Taggart (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Edward Willis (President)
  • Bryce Taggart (Vice President)
  • Cory Robinson (Treasurer)

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

To financially support the Fort Douglas Military Museum to preserve the legacy of Fort Douglas to foster interest in Fort Douglas roll in the development of Utah and the Intermountain West and to foster interest in the military history of the area.

What it reported doing in 2025

In the last year we have launched expanded on three different exhibits while the new exhibit space design process takes place. ? Utah Air Guard ? Description: History and information on Utahs Air Guard ? Artifact Spotlight: Personal items of General John Matthews ? Visitor Feedback: The mannequin with General Matthews flight suit is always a favorite because of the likeness of the mannequin and General Matthew. ? 104th Infantry Division Timberwolves ? Description: The history and legacy of the 104th Division with a focus on World War II. We expanded the exhibit to fit the whole display case. ? Artifact Spotlight: We added a full body mannequin in uniform a side arm and a rifle. ? Visitor Feedback: We get many visitors who are relatives of someone who served in the 104th and they greatly appreciate being able to see the preservation of that history. ? A Fort Above the Valley: Power Politics and the West ? Description: Phase I of IV telling basic Fort Douglas history in the form of large scale printing for wallpaper. ? Artifact Spotlight: Contains some 1800s photos rarely made public before. ? Visitor Feedback: It looks really nice.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 79% 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

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: 2
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 2.1%; rating input score 2
  • Program expense ratio: 3.6%; rating input score 4
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 46.29; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -35.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 2.1% of revenue deployed · 3.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 2/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 4/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.