Cagem

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
452640392
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
White Plains, NY, USA
Phone
8776022436
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$407,621
Expenses
$385,079
Assets
$106,452
Liabilities
$36,093

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Campaign Against Female Genital Mutilation is committed to the eradication of female genital mutilation (FGM). CAGeM links grassroots activism in countries that still practice FGM to foster communication, information and strategy sharing. The mission of the campaign is to ensure that countries practicing FGM adopt a definitive strategy to end FGM and provide protection to women and girls who flee their countries for fear of being mutilated. The campaign focuses on developing and implementing educational programs to eradicate FGM and assisting victims. The campaign is committed to initiating and supporting grassroots anti-FGM campaigns around the world.

What it reported doing in 2011

Female genital mutilation (fgm) victim assistance program: cagem provides medical assistance to victims of female genital mutilation. Assistance includes medical treatment and surgery to treat complications arising from fgm including obstetric fistula. The program also trains surgeons to perform clitoral reconstructive surgery. Under this program cagem is building a free female genital mutilation hospital for victims. Cagem funds this program through funding from foundations and individual contributors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 78
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.5%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.34; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 4 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $384K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.