Executive Womens Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 261783811
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- The Woodlands, TX, USA
- Phone
- 2148834964
- Rating
- 43
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $61,085
- Expenses
- $48,092
- Assets
- $178,549
- Liabilities
- $8,000
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Cyndi Alvarado (Past President/VP of Fundraising & Grants)
- Kristen Bates (President)
- Veronica Villafana (President Elect)
People named in this filing
- Cyndi Alvarado (Past President/VP of Fundraising & Grants)
- Kristen Bates (President)
- Veronica Villafana (President Elect)
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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Executive Women's Alliance (EWA) is a 501c3 nonprofit executive women's organization that provides personal and professional development for its members alongside educational outreach programs for young women through EWA's Women of Vision mentorship program. Scholarships are provided to the young women in the Women of Vision program upon graduation, to attend institutions of higher education for purposes of facilitating their entry into business and/or professional careers.
What it reported doing in 2024
We were able to award $14K in scholarships for the girls who completed our Women of Vision mentorship program. We awarded 7 girls with scholarships ($1K per semester for the prior school year).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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
MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 14
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 67
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 12.3%; rating input score 12
- Program expense ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 16
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 21.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.71; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 12.3% of revenue deployed · 15.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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 12/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 16/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.