Wisconsin Professional Police Association Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 396081519
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6082733840
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Law Enforcement
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,462,000
- Expenses
- $3,412,515
- Assets
- $3,014,593
- Liabilities
- $1,783,467
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
36 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NICHELLE NELSON (PRESIDENT)
- KELLY POWERS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- JAMES PALMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JAMES PALMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $294,665 total reported compensation
- ROGER PALEK (DIRECTOR OF LEGAL & FIELD SERVICES): $193,427 total reported compensation
- KATHRYN HARRELL (STAFF ATTORNEY): $172,108 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Wisconsin professional police association (wppa) provides for the social and economic welfare of Wisconsin police officers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Legislative - wppa employs lobbyists to advocate for law enforcement officers and the law enforcement community at large on a wide variety of criminal justice, labor and professional policy matters before the state legislature. Along with passing the law enforcement officers bill of rights, which established "just cause" as the standard of review for disciplinary actions against officers by employers, some of our more recent accomplishments include new laws that require employers to pay the legal fees of officers who are exonerated in criminal proceedings arising from on-duty conduct, establish tougher penalties for individuals that injure officers while trying to escape, and require independent and transparent investigations into officer involved deaths by outside agencies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 71.1%; rating input score 71; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.88; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.59; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 35.7%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 28 of 28 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $295K · 36 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.