Sugar River Senior Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
845003378
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Belleville, WI, USA
Phone
6084246007
Rating
52
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$352,373
Expenses
$328,376
Assets
$88,005
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KENT BRAUER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN STREMIKIS (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANGELA MARKHARDT (TREASURER DIRECTOR): $66,872 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Assist older adults to remain active in their community independent in their own homes and enhance their quality of life.

What it reported doing in 2025

Sugar river senior center served home delivered meals. In 2025 we served approximately 25 meals a day monday through friday for lunch. We have a team of rsvp volunteers that delivered those meals to the seniors that needed them. The team of volunteers numbers about 25 people that take different days weeks to deliver 1 of our 3 routes throughout the area. There is income from dane county nutrition program that helps to pay for the kitchen staff salary but all expenses for this activity are worked out through the county contracts. Case management is also contracted through the county and that covers the salary of the case managers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 69% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 25
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.1%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 29.1%; rating input score 29
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.27; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.1% of revenue deployed · 29.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $95K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $67K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 43 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.