Wisconsin Institute for Healthy Aging I

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273001041
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Madison, WI, USA
Phone
6082435690
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$606,845
Expenses
$804,079
Assets
$775,559
Liabilities
$86,276

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Heather VanRoo (President)
  • Darcy Vanden Eizen - Former (Vice President)
  • John Schnabl (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jill Renken (Executive Dir.): $114,104 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Wisconsin institute for healthy aging, inc. Is to improve the health and well-being of all people as we age. We do this by disseminating evidence-based health promotion and prevention programs and practices and by engaging in collaborative public health strategies in Wisconsin and beyond. We envision a culture of healthy aging that embraces independence and self-management, and that values every person in every community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Wiha organizes and conducts facilitator trainings, supports and coaches facilitators, and purchases and distributes materials needed for eleven high-level evidence-based health promotion programs. In addition, wiha coordinates two statewide coalitions and distributes information and resources to help all people to age well.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 80% 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

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.9%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 61.1%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: $24.36 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 51.3%; rating input score 51; 34th 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: -32.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.9% of revenue deployed · 61.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $491K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $114K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 51/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.