League of Women Voters of Wisconsin Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391609121
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082560827
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Voter Education, Registration

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,182,839
Expenses
$1,015,442
Assets
$713,529
Liabilities
$42,455

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DOROTHY SKYE (PRESIDENT)
  • MELANIE RAMEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DEBRA CRONMILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBRA CRONMILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $130,750 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The league of women voters of Wisconsin (lwvwi) is a nonpartisan political organization. We encourage informed, active participation in government and work to increase understanding of major public policy issues. We influence public policy through both education and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2024

The league of women voters of Wisconsin provided nonpartisan voter education on the league's vote411 platform. The league promoted the use of the state's voting information platform, myvote.wi.gov. The league promotes the use of absentee ballots and provides voters with accurate information on how to request, complete, and successfully return absentee ballots. The league actively recruits election observers and poll workers to ensure safe, fair and accessible elections.the league continues to provide leadership in the wi fair maps coalition to create public education and advocacy campaigns, and to inform voters about gerrymandering in Wisconsin. This work increases awareness and promotes an independent, nonpartisan redistricting process. The league also promotes an impartial and accountable judiciary.the league's membership and events coordinator supports membership growth across the state in existing local leagues as well as assisted with the formation of new leagues. The staff is addressing needs in leadership development and building community alliances with diverse individuals and organizations to make league work even more effective in voter and community services. The league provides its member organizations and members with information and guidance regarding the implementation of the diversity, equity and inclusion policy adopted by the national organization.league advocacy includes a small amount of lobbying as reported elsewhere on this return.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 75.8%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $83.23 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 52.4%; rating input score 52; 30th 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: 14.2%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.9%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.4% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 75.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $769K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $131K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.