Domestic Violence Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391901782
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4028279280
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Spouse Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$299,968
Expenses
$511,148
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUE BEHR (PRESIDENT)
  • AIMEE MELTON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TARA MUIR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TARA MUIR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $33,501 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the dvc is to end intimate partner violence in douglas county by uniting people, services, and systems. Systems change work is achieved through collective impact as well as research, assessment, education, and the facilitation of collaborative partnerships.

What it reported doing in 2016

The dvc coordinates the omaha/douglas county community response team (crt) which is comprised of area criminal justice agencies, service providers from both victims and offenders, local hospitals and population specific service organizations. Currently the crt is implementing recommendations from a two-year community safety assessment project. Community outcome performance measures are worked on with the crt as well.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 61% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 93
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $235.93 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 21.9%; rating input score 22; 35th 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -70.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -38.7% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $413K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2013 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.