East African Center for the Empowerment of Women

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
912161222
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9198640293
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,787
Expenses
$80,336
Assets
$8,148
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nat Katin Borland (President)
  • Jen Hill (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Nat Katin Borland (President)
  • Alessandra DeLaCruz (Treasurer)
  • Libby Gluck (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. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The East African Center for the Empowerment of Women and Children is a community-based organization that provides education and health programs to several villages on Kenyas coast. The EACs mission is to help communities achieve empowerment by increasing literacy for women and children, improving health status, and eradicating poverty.

What it reported doing in 2016

East African Center provides adult and child education, health education and information, and poverty eradication programs in Kenya. It has a school for grades kindergarten through 8th grade and a school farm that supplies food for the students everyday. The organization supports a team of 50 community health workers to inform the community about health, provide monitoring for post and pre-natal care, and economically empower families who support individuals with HIV/AIDS. EACs primary approaches are to meet the stated needs of the community, partner with and build the capacity of local government rather than create parallel services, facilitate access to resources for true empowerment, and create sustainable programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.7%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 86.1%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: $52.15 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.4%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.7% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.7% of revenue deployed · 86.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2012 to 2016
  • 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.

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 scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.