Center for Women

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570921549
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8437637333
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$402,894
Expenses
$588,415
Assets
$548,262
Liabilities
$253

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SONYA WYATT (PRESIDENT)
  • AMY BRENNAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DONNA ENGLANDER FACTOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • WAYNETTE LISA DABNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONNA ENGLANDER FACTOR (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $40,120 total reported compensation
  • AMY BRENNAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $22,196 total reported compensation
  • WAYNETTE LISA DABNEY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $17,075 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the center for women is to educate and advocate for all women in the greater charleston area so that they are empowered to achieve economic success and leadership in their professional and personal lives and community.

What it reported doing in 2017

Awareness and advocacy- we deliver programs that raise awareness and connect with stakeholders, key leaders and decision makers to advance women. Programs include support services, personal and business counseling, lowcountry women with wings, referrals, dissemination of the charting the course for change report, and events that promote awareness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: -46%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $353K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.