Co Partners of Campesinas
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 561973794
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2007
- Location
- Alexandria, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7034474281
- Rating
- 35
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Women's Service Clubs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $16,669
- Expenses
- $85,043
- Assets
- $39,809
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
People named in this filing
- Archer Heinzen (Chairperson)
- Kristin Langlykke (Vice Chariperson)
- Jeannette Rodriguez (Secretary)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Co-partners works with organizations of rural women in El Salvador to help them make better lives for themselves and their families guided by our motto to "Learn, Earn and Lead". Co-partners provides resources for skills training, equipment for training and production, educational scholarships, infrastructure and organizational strengthening. The local partner organizations manage small grants provided by Co-partners, plus resources that they generate from training classes and production activities. They maintain organizational records and coordinate with other organizations and local government and represent the needs of lower income and rural families in the broader community. Co-partners also provides annual volunteer training teams to work with organizational leaders, youth and children.
What it reported doing in 2025
Earn: The two vocational training centers in El Salvador enable participants to earn a living wage in El Salvador rather than immigrating to find better opportunities. The courses offered by the two training centers provide options to traditional agricultural work that is limited by a growing rural population in an area where suitable agricultural land is limited. There are many examples where the training courses have led to new income opportunities. As an example the residential wiring class graduates have passed an exam given by the university and received licenses for residential wiring. This provides the person with the ability to wire a house and also to approve the wiring done by a home owner, certifying that the work meets code, a requirement of Municipal government. Several graduates have gone on to acquire higher level licenses. The sewing class has led to graduates having contracted to sew school uniforms or joined with others to work on uniform contracts. The cosmetology class has led graduates to set up their own beauty shops and to also work special events like parades requiring costumes and makeup, and weddings. The pastry class graduates are focused primarily on commercial level production for retail sale.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 80% 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.
The verdict
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -410.2%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -15.3% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.