American Association of University Women Tahoe Nevada Branch
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 943055754
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Incline Village, NV, USA
- Phone
- 8473314520
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $56,421
- Expenses
- $47,661
- Assets
- $98,286
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Barbara Ortiz (Co-President)
- Peggy Poindexter (Co-President)
People named in this filing
- Barbara Ortiz (Co-President)
- Peggy Poindexter (Co-President)
- Julie Tice (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
"To advance gender equity for women and girls through research, education and advocacy".
What it reported doing in 2024
College Scholarships and awards for 10 high school graduates, most of whom are first generation students. Grants and direct services to support STEM, homework help, and college/trades counseling programs at elementary, middle and high schools reaching over 150 female students Monthly program meetings available to 145 adult women with varying educational presentations on topics including health, history, travel, nature, and community service
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 17
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 16.2%; rating input score 16
- Program expense ratio: 19.1%; rating input score 19
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 16.2% of revenue deployed · 19.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $9K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 16/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.