Cream City Foundation Inc C/o Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391416063
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Milwaukee, WI, USA
- Phone
- 4142725805
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $825,146
- Expenses
- $243,158
- Assets
- $2,337,798
- Liabilities
- $2,381
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHARLIE NASH (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- GREGORY WESLEY (ASSISTANT SECRETARY (START 8/24)): $223,168 total reported compensation
- YELENA CHESTER (ASSISTANT TREASURER (START 8/24)): $170,324 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
What it reported doing in 2024
See schedule oas set forth in the cream city's articles of incorporation, "the corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for charitable, scientific, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended, or its successor (the "code"). Specifically, the corporation is organized and shall be operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the function of, or to carry out the purposes of the greater milwaukee foundation, inc., a Wisconsin non-stock corporation exempt from federal income tax under section 509(a) and 501(c)(3) of the code, and to invest in, receive, hold, use, and dispose of all property, real or personal, as may be necessary or desirable to carry into effect the aforementioned purposes. Greater milwaukee foundation's mission is to promote the betterment of the greater milwaukee community and the enhancement of quality of life for all its citizens. Cream city foundation will focus on serving lgbt communities in the region.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 47
- Transparency & Controls: 57
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 84
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 24.2%; rating input score 24
- Program expense ratio: 73.8%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $81.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: 55.9%; rating input score 56; 30th 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; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
- 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: 70.5%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.61; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -18% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 24.2% of revenue deployed · 73.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $180K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $223K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2016 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.