Electric Girls Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474765170
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Metairie, LA, USA
Phone
5044754682
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$366,265
Expenses
$298,338
Assets
$268,726
Liabilities
$53,073

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JILLIAN SANDOVAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 10/2020))
  • JOAN JUNGBIN LEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JILLIAN SANDOVAL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (THRU 10/2020)): $47,248 total reported compensation
  • JOAN JUNGBIN LEE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $12,441 total reported compensation
  • FLOR SERNA (EXEC DIR (THRU 01/2020)/TREASURER): $2,419 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Electric girls builds girls' (ages 5 to 14) confidence & capabilities by engaging them in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem). Electric girls facilitates in-school and extra-curricular programs (after-school, weekends, summer camps) that teach girls basic skills in stem, and help to develop girls into confident leaders and mentors in technology.

What it reported doing in 2020

Summer camp - electric girls pivoted to create virutal stem programming complete with stem activity kits that held all the supplies girls would need for their projects. 150 girls attended with 80 of them attending on full scholarships and 24 accessing programs through sliding scale tuition. Saturday programs - electric girls ran a monthly virutal meetup (falling into design thinking) for virtual summer campers to reunite with their cohorts for design thinking activities. All 150 vsc participants attended free of charge (this was a no tuition program).robotics program - electric girls continued a post-competition season engagement of 17 girls. All 17 girls attended on full scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.9; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.3% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.3% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 82.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $247K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2018 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.