Foundation for Women

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
330786016
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
La Jolla, CA, USA
Phone
8584830400
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$422,754
Expenses
$373,274
Assets
$1,659,306
Liabilities
$1,578,122

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Deborah Lindholm (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Deborah Lindholm (CEO): $12,000 total reported compensation
  • Charlotte Alston Legg (Secretary): $8,106 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Eliminating global poverty through microfinance.

What it reported doing in 2025

The microfinance program provides capital and business training to extremely poor women, enabling them to start or expand their own income-generating activity, and thus better provide for their families. Capital is also provided to low-fee independent school operators with the goal of being able to provide education for more children. Liberia has the largest percentage of school-age children out-of-school of any country. In partnership with Benson Hospital and Habitat for Humanity, FFW also provides capital to independent community health clinics and housing loans to individual families. Foundation For Women is committed to a collective impact model, Seats at the Table for Liberia, in the belief that great social change can best occur in partnership with other strong organizations. Foundation For Women is the leading microfinance organization in Liberia, developing a model which can be duplicated elsewhere around the world.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 56% for direct work, and 44% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 65
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.5%; rating input score 60
  • Program expense ratio: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $98.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 11.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.45; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.95; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.7% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.5% of revenue deployed · 67.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $252K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grants require schedule f did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.