Sojourner Family Peace Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391276210
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4148103639
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Family Violence Shelters

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,442,875
Expenses
$9,522,048
Assets
$15,921,550
Liabilities
$363,700

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

Leadership & pay

35 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PITRE CARMEN (PRESIDENT/CEO)
  • DUBOIS TAMMY (VICE PRESIDENT/CFO)
  • PAUST SWENSON CHERIE (VICE PRESIDENT/CDO)
  • GORE CECELIA (BOARD PAST PRESIDENT - EXITED 12/2024)
  • HASELEY HOLLY (BOARD PRESIDENT - APPOINTED 12/2024)
  • HEARD JACKIE (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PITRE CARMEN (PRESIDENT/CEO): $245,152 total reported compensation
  • DUBOIS TAMMY (VICE PRESIDENT/CFO): $214,164 total reported compensation
  • PAUST SWENSON CHERIE (VICE PRESIDENT/CDO): $175,084 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Transforming lives impacted by domestic violence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Other program services: healing services this department consists of children's programming, hope & healing, and russian-speaking family strengthening program (rfsp). Children's programming consists of children and youth, as well as family, programming including support groups, art and music activities, drop in support, and camp hope Wisconsin. Hope & healing provides educational, curriculum based, peer support groups, facilitated by trained staff. Rfsp provides culturally and linguistically specific individual and group support to survivors in russian. Program statistics: children's programming, 468 individuals served; 4,018 contacts. Hope & healing, 314 individuals served; 1,227 contacts. Rfsp, 33 individuals served; 743 contacts.community domestic abuse advocacy program (cdaap) advocates are located in milwaukee police district stations and suburban departments. They conduct safety planning, connect survivors to resources, linking them to sojourner and other community based services, and discuss the next steps in the criminal legal process, ensuring that they are aware of their rights. A pilot project within this program includes advocates responding on-scene to domestic violence calls with law enforcement. Program statistics: 2,630 individuals served; 4,183 contacts.courthouse advocacy program advocates provide assistance with filing restraining orders, including accompaniment to injunction hearings, developing safety plans, and linking clients to additional services to support survivors. Program statistics: 4,264 individuals served; 15,787 contacts, and 593 outgoing follow up calls.community education program staff provide outreach, education, prevention, and professional trainings related to domestic abuse. Types of outreach and education include attending and staffing resource tables at community events, providing workshops to youth and families about healthy relationships, and participating in panel discussions. Program statistics: 140 events; 4,161 total participants.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 70.5%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 42nd 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.67; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 70.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $245K · 35 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $813K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.