Destination Madison Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
201127385
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082552537
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$79,001
Expenses
$78,667
Assets
$232,644
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELLIE WESTMAN CHIN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELLIE WESTMAN CHIN (PRESIDENT/CEO): $378,745 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Destination madison foundation, inc. Is organized and shall be operated exclusively to further the well-being of the greater madison convention & visitors bureau, inc.in connection with and in furtherance thereof, the corporation shall have the following purposes:-to provide information to the residents of and visitors to the greater madison/dane county area regarding the diverse cultural, educational, scientific, civic and athletic benefits of living and working in the greater madison/dane county area.-to provide resource support for events hosted by the city of madison and/or the gmcvb that promote and encourage economic development within the greater madison/dane county area.-to conduct research and disseminate data regarding economic development within the greater madison/dane county area.-to receive, obtain, control, hold, administer, invest and reinvest and disburse funds and property of any type as may be received by the corporation, either absolutely or in trust.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide resource support for events hosted by the city of madison and/or the greater madison convention & visitors bureau, inc. That promote and encourage economic development within the greater madison/dane county area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 73% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 92% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 54.1%; rating input score 54; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.96; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $379K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 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.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.