Afghan Womens Writing Project Awwp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272240112
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Oakland, CA, USA
Phone
5102890106
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cultural, Ethnic Awareness

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$261,122
Expenses
$413,254
Assets
$50,286
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHEVY SMITH (CO PRESIDENT)
  • HOLLY HUTCHINSON (CO PRESIDENT)
  • LORI NOACK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KAREN MCRAE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORI NOACK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $52,874 total reported compensation
  • SUSAN POSTLEWAITE (EDITING DIRECTOR): $33,835 total reported compensation
  • STACY PARKER LEMELLE (COMMUNICATIONS DIR): $28,437 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide online crative writing workshops to afghan women so that they can voice their stories. Produce written pieces for online magazine.

What it reported doing in 2015

Safe facilities for computer use: since 2012 awwp has run kabuls first women-only internet cafe, also used for montjly workshopsonline dari & pashto workshops: wihic offer opportunities for afghan women who do not write in englishequipment: provides laptops and internet service for writerstraining workshops: in collaboration with afghan-based agencies, awwp provides awwp writers with opportunities to learn from top writers and teachers in a secure, face to face environmentoral stories: awwp developed an oral stories component to capture the voices and stories of women who lack literacy skillstransportation: awwp provides safe round trip transportation to al awwp writers to every event.internship program: awwp offers a 6 month internship program in which afghan women work in the kabul office to help strengthen the in country programs. At the same time they are developing marketable skills to use in the workplace.

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 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

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 53
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.8%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 46%; rating input score 46
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -58.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.12; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.8% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 370% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.8% of revenue deployed · 46% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $190K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $53K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2013 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.