Greater Cedarburg Foundation Inc C/o Greater Milwaukee Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
392008146
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4142725805
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$540,211
Expenses
$363,049
Assets
$8,832,042
Liabilities
$37,057

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN GILLIGAN (ASSISTANT SECRETARY (END 8/24)): $342,082 total reported compensation
  • GREGORY WESLEY (ASSISTANT SECRETARY (START 8/24)): $223,168 total reported compensation
  • KEN ROBERTSON (ASSISTANT TREASURER (END 8/24)): $199,749 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 ogreater cedarburg foundation, inc. Was formed to operate as a supporting organization described in sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(3) of the internal revenue code to support greater milwaukee foundation, inc. The greater milwaukee foundation is a public charity described in sections 509(a)(1) of the internal revenue code.as set forth in the greater cedarburg's articles of incorporation, "the corporation is organized and shall at all times hereafter be operated, exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific literary and educational purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code and exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of and/or to carry out the purposes of the greater milwaukee foundation by facilitating greater milwaukee foundation's programs within the cedarburg area. Such purposes may include, but are not limited to, soliciting and receiving contributions and bequests of an endowment or capital nature to carry out greater milwaukee foundation's programs by supporting charitable organizations and programs within the cedarburg area. The corporation may accomplish its purposes directly or by making grants or other payments for charitable purposes to third parties."

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 65.5%; rating input score 66
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th 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: 81.4%; rating input score 81; 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: 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: 32.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 24.33; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 65.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $238K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $342K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 27 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.