Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
391560486
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082571516
Rating
86
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Sexual Abuse, Prevention

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,042,281
Expenses
$1,033,506
Assets
$753,325
Liabilities
$52,094

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CYNTHIA JONES (PRESIDENT)
  • KOREY HOKENSON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KELLY MOE LITKE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • AMANDA DOTSON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KELLY MOE LITKE (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $116,768 total reported compensation
  • AMANDA DOTSON (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $101,726 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 mission of Wisconsin coalition against sexual assault, inc. Is to create the social change necessary to end sexual violence. The Wisconsin coalition against sexual assault (wcasa) is a statewide organization incorporated in 1985 to support and complement the work of Wisconsin's community-based sexual assault service provider programs and other organizations working to end sexual violence. Wcasa works in collaboration with communities throughout the state to support existing services to victims/survivors of sexual violence, to plan for the development of new services, to create and support community prevention efforts, and to stimulate community ownership of the issue of sexual violence.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rape prevention education: the prevention of sexual violence requires a comprehensive, community-wide approach. When we speak of prevention, we are not talking just about stopping someone from doing something in the moment, but about changing the cultural perspective and thought process so that violent behaviors are not even seen as an option.the organization's program works to implement a spectrum of prevention: strengthening individual knowledge and skills, enhancing an individual's capability of preventing injury or illness and promoting safety; promoting community education, reaching groups of people with information and resources to promote health and safety; educating providers, informing providers who will transmit skills and knowledge to others; fostering coalitions and networks, convening groups and individuals for broader goals and greater impact; changing organizational practices, adopting regulations and shaping norms to improve health and safety; and influencing policy and legislation, developing strategies to change laws and policies to influence outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $38.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 0.8%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.4% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.2% of revenue deployed · 85.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $887K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $117K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.