Rape Crisis Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237329215
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082515126
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Rape Victim Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,945,150
Expenses
$2,387,382
Assets
$2,638,108
Liabilities
$1,365,301

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARYANN HOTCHKISS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DANA PELLEBON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANA PELLEBON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $158,490 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Rape crisis center, inc. Advocates for those harmed by sexual violence by centering survivors, promoting societal change, and committing to be an evolving force for social equity.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rape crisis center advocates provided free individual emotional support and advocacy to individuals. These programs are all designed to help victims/survivors heal from the trauma of sexual assault or childhood sexual abuse and incorporate the crimes committed against them into their lives in a healthier manner. Through the 24/7 helpline, the rcc provided immediate support on calls and did this in large part with hours of helpline coverage provided by rigorously trained volunteers. The center's staff responded with in-person advocacy providing medical and legal accompaniments. A dedicated helpline answered in spanish, 60825valor (258-2567) provided access to the center's free services for those whose primary language is spanish. All services are provided free of charge to victims. A university of Wisconsin-madison grant assures access for its students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 68% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - 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: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.7%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.4%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $39.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.7%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.6%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.7% of revenue deployed · 81.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

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 6/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.