Oakwood Village University Woods Apartme Nts Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237401541
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082304699
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Supportive Housing for Older Adults
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,302,325
Expenses
$18,518,199
Assets
$76,128,746
Liabilities
$110,047,532

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JANICE HAMILTON-CRAWFORD (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • JANICE HAMILTON-CRAWFORD (CEO): $547,665 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN RAFFERTY (CHIEF HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICER): $286,444 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE O'DONNELL (CFO): $285,156 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Oakwood is called to serve a thriving community where seniors live with dignity, connection, and purpose.

What it reported doing in 2025

The oaks, heritage oaks and tower are 90, 125 and 10 unit independent living apartment homes for the elderly. Residents receive daily check ins, optional housekeeping, and maintenance. There is a full time social worker, transportation services, and life enrichment activities for all physical and mental capabilities. Residents receive priority access to assisted living, skilled nursing and therapy services if needed. 10 units of the tower are operated under section 8 of the housing law for low income elderly. The residents that qualify for the hud program have the same continuing care services as market rate residents. During 2025, there were 81,349 days of care.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 89% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.3%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 81.2%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -1.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.11; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.45; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.7%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.3% of revenue deployed · 81.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $15M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $548K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 5 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 17/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.