Golden House Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391342659
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Green Bay, WI, USA
Phone
9204350100
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,023,398
Expenses
$3,208,701
Assets
$13,035,262
Liabilities
$1,918,033

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTIN LAURSEN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEIKA BURNIKEL (EXECUTIVE DI): $144,057 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Golden house is a secure place where victims of domestic abuse find compassionate, knowledgeable advocates offering confidential, individualized help. Golden house serves individuals and families of all ages, genders, races, sexual orientation, and gender expression, with counseling, temporary shelter, 24-hour helpline, legal assistance (restraining and harassment order filing assistance), support groups, transitional housing options, prevention education and more.

What it reported doing in 2025

Golden house has served the brown county community for over 40 years. In 2025, golden house provided emergency shelter to more than 831 individuals, served over 3,479 outreach clients and provided support to more than 16,560 individuals via our helpline. Golden house works to bring personal, social, and institutional change by providing information, referrals, case management, support and advocacy. Golden house offers a 24 hour emergency shelter, a 24 hour help-line, individual crisis counseling, legal and personal advocacy, support groups, transportation assistance, educational arrangements for school-aged children, and prevention education. The organization has specialized services for children, culturally specific programming, and services for individuals over 60+.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.4%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 78.1%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $65.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 83; 83rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th 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: -6.1%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.06; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.4% of revenue deployed · 78.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $144K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.