Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Dane County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391077783
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6086615437
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,837,439
- Expenses
- $1,725,370
- Assets
- $1,678,554
- Liabilities
- $52,145
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANA HOOKER (PRESIDENT)
- JENNIFER GIEMZA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- SANDY MORALES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- SANDY MORALES (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $152,812 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Big brothers and big sisters of dane county's mission is to create and support one-to-one mentoring relationships that ignite the power and promise of youth.
What it reported doing in 2025
Enrollment: volunteer enrollment - potential volunteers complete an online application form, providing basic information and expressing their interest in becoming a mentor. Bbbs staff reviews the application and contacts the applicant to provide more information and answer any questions. Applicants attend a virtual or in-person interview with bbbs staff to discuss their motivations, interests, and suitability for mentoring. A thorough background check is conducted, including: criminal history check, fingerprint check (for federal grants), and driving record check. Volunteers attend pre-match training sessions to learn about the program, expectations, and best practices for mentoring. Bbbs staff carefully assesses the volunteer's interests, personality, and preferences to find a suitable match with a child. Once a potential match is identified, the volunteer's information is shared with the child's parent or guardian for approval. A meeting is arranged between the volunteer, the child, the child's parent/guardian, and a bbbs match support specialist. During this meeting, agency ground rules are discussed, and any remaining paperwork is completed.child enrollment - parents or guardians initiate the process by contacting bbbs agency or filling out an online application form. Basic information about the child and family is collected to determine eligibility. The child enrollment specialists conducts an interview with the parent/guardian and the child. This interview helps the agency understand the child's needs, interests, and personality to make an appropriate match. The interview takes place at the family's home. Child safety training is provided for both parents and children. After the interview and assessment, the child is placed on a waiting list. The waiting period can vary depending on the availability of suitable mentors. When a potential mentor is identified, bbbs staff presents the match to the family. Parents have the opportunity to ask questions and provide input on the proposed match. If the match is approved, a meeting is arranged between the child, parent/guardian, the mentor, and a bbbs case manager. This meeting allows everyone to get acquainted and discuss program guidelines.volunteer recruitment - developing and implementing targeted recruitment campaigns to address specific needs. Attending community fairs and events aligned with the organization's mission. Partnering with local universities and colleges to recruit student volunteers. Forming partnerships with local businesses, sponsors, and government officials. Utilizing social media platforms for recruitment, including creating shareable content for volunteers. Distributing public service announcements to television and radio stations. Implementing social media campaigns to reach a wider audience. Hosting recruitment events, such as information sessions. Providing promotional materials like posters and flyers with qr codes for easy access to information.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.4%; rating input score 58
- Program expense ratio: 60.8%; rating input score 61
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.3 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.4% of revenue deployed · 60.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 20 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 40 of 40 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.