Glenwood Commons Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 562379798
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990 2015
- Location
- Glenwood City, WI, USA
- Phone
- 7152654271
- Rating
- 48
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Housing Development, Construction, Management
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $970,662
- Expenses
- $448,219
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Dean Yohnk (President)
- Craig Fowler (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Craig Fowler (Vice President): $175,323 total reported compensation
- Steven Decker (Treasurer): $162,720 total reported compensation
- Keith Montgomery (board Member): $160,638 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide housing to students of University of Wisconsin-Barron County & Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College.
What it reported doing in 2015
Glenwood Commons provides low income and student housing to individuals residing in and or attending one of the two public colleges in Rice Lake, Wisconsin.Working closely with the leadership of Wisconsin Indianhead Technical College (WITC) and the University of Wisconsin-Barron County (UW-BC), both located in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, Glenwood Commons has since it opened served as a residence for students. Until Glenwood Commons opened there were few, if any options for students to live near either campus. With an on-site resident assistant, pod designed rooms (typical of modern residence halls) and collegial study areas, the facility offers students at both colleges the opportunity to live close to and walk to school. From the outset, leadership of the two colleges has been involved in the administration and direction of the organization which both schools have funded.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 81% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 42
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 45
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 20.9%; rating input score 21
- Program expense ratio: 90.5%; rating input score 91
- 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 28.6%; rating input score 29; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 53.8%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 30.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -2.8% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -14.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 20.9% of revenue deployed · 90.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $406K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $175K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2009 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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 21/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 29/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.