Wisconsin Trust Account Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 391555465
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6082576845
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Legal Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $12,752,098
- Expenses
- $9,710,461
- Assets
- $13,557,626
- Liabilities
- $3,280,125
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- REBECCA MURRAY (EXECUTIVE DI): $190,558 total reported compensation
- JEFFERY BROWN (GRANTS PROGR): $134,103 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 Wisconsin trust account foundation works with civil legal aid organizations in Wisconsin to increase access to justice. We oversee funds and invest in services and projects to help people resolve legal problems.
What it reported doing in 2025
Direct legal services grants - wistaf's longest-standing grant program funds a range of civil legal services for wisconsinites with limited incomes, helping them to resolve major problems that create barriers to achieving personal safety, financial independence, and community stability. The foundation made direct legal services grants to seventeen non-profit civil legal services provider agencies to assist low-income individuals and families with civil legal needs in areas such as family, housing, employment, disability, and consumer law. No revenues are derived directly from these activities. Administrative costs to administer the civil legal services grant programs are funded by the interest on lawyers trust accounts (iolta) program (in accordance with Wisconsin supreme court rules chapter 13), and portions of other revenue sources based on a written cost allocation policy/calculation.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 70% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 95% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73.7%; rating input score 74
- Program expense ratio: 96.3%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $475.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 23.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.4% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 73.7% of revenue deployed · 96.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 21 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 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: 27 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 25 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.