Strattec Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391890894
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4142725805
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Private Independent Foundations

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,304
Expenses
$166,716
Assets
$1,877,424
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK KREJCI (PRESIDENT (END 4/24))
  • AL HAMDAN (PRESIDENT (END 12/24))
  • JENNIFER L SLATER (PRESIDENT (START 4/24))

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLEN GILLIGAN (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 othe strattec 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 receive contributions from harold stratton ii, and members of his family, and distribute them in support of the greater milwaukee foundation. The greater milwaukee foundation is a public charity described in sections 509(a)(1) of the internal revenue code.as set forth in the strattec foundation inc.'s articles of incorporation, "strattec foundation, inc. Was organized, and shall at all times be operated, exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, and to carry out the purposes of, greater milwaukee foundation, a charitable trust organized pursuant to the declaration of trust ... In furtherance thereof, the corporation shall be organized and operated exclusively for, and its activities shall be limited to, such religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes as will benefit, carry out the purposes and/or perform the functions of greater milwaukee foundation, including among such purposes . . . The making of grants and the disbursement of funds to the greater milwaukee foundation and/or for the benefit and/or purposes of the greater milwaukee foundation."

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 86.7%; rating input score 87
  • 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: 99.5%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -294.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.26; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -31.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 86.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $342K · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.