Family Safety Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454544393
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
9187427480
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Crime, Legal Related N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$8,294,847
Expenses
$1,311,389
Assets
$20,168,425
Liabilities
$49,727

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SUZANN STEWART (EXECUTIVE DI): $113,300 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The family safety center exists to promote safety and justice in tulsa county through co-located multi-disciplinary services that offer protection, hope and healing to victims of intimate partner and family violence, sexual assault, stalking and elder abuse.

What it reported doing in 2024

The family safety center (fsc) is a collaborative partnership of 13 agencies that place their professional staff in one location to serve the victims of intimate partner and domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking and their families. Originally established in 2005 as one of 15 awardees of the president's family justice center initiative, and administered by one of the partners, the fsc became an independent agency in march of 2012. Onsite partner staff provides civil legal services, police investigative services, bi-lingual advocacy and self sufficiency resources and referrals, an emergency protective order (epo) court via written affidavit and petition, child trauma assessment and triage counseling, forensic documentation of injuries and sexual assault exams, chaplaincy for spiritual support, mental health support and childcare for onsite clients. In 2024, the fsc provided more than 18,000 services to 7200 individual clients. 3,685 epos were filed with 2940 granted, an 80% grant rate. The program expanded partnership to include other service delivery organizations and research partner, the university of Oklahoma. This included emergency housing assistance, rental and utility payment assistance for victims of dv and ipv to prevent homelessness and an organization, project hope, to assist in eviction prevention during covid for victims and families. The fsc continuted in a partnership with the 14th district court to coordinate the mentor court program recently awarded to the court. This program mentors other jurisdictions identitifed by the department of justice to implement best practices in holding offenders accountability through dedicated dockets for misdemeanors and felonies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 77% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 48
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 89
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.7%; rating input score 17
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $80.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 84.2%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 15.38; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.7% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $113K · 19 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $2.4M reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.