Aurora Family Service Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
390806174
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4142991576
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Hospital, General

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,854,820
Expenses
$3,858,289
Assets
$233,860
Liabilities
$3,460,388

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CRISTY GARCIA-THOMAS (DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT, CHAIRPERSON)
  • MARK HUBER (DIRECTOR, VICE PRESIDENT, VICE CHAIRPERSON)

Highest reported compensation

  • DOMINIC NAKIS (FORMER OFFICER): $4,607,851 total reported compensation
  • BRAD CLARK (ASSISTANT TREASURER): $2,933,092 total reported compensation
  • CRISTY GARCIA-THOMAS (DIRECTOR, PRESIDENT, CHAIRPERSON): $2,544,681 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Aurora family service partners with families to enhance their capability to anticipate, identify and manage challenges they face in their everyday lives through the integration of health, mental health, and social services providing culturally proficient services, community partnerships, professional education, and effective advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Aurora family service, inc. (afs) provides counseling services for depression, alcohol or drug abuse, marriage and family problems, job stress and other concerns, with fees based on ability to pay. Afs also provides consumer credit counseling, geriatric services, parenting education and support and other child welfare promotion services, and professional post-graduate education for marriage and family therapists.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 2
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.5%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -35.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 14.8; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -8.2% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.5% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4.6M · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 33 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.