Gender Benders

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463989884
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Piedmont, SC, USA
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$109,882
Expenses
$65,282
Assets
$48,596
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • IVY HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • IVY HILL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • MISHA GIBSON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • AUSTIN JOHNSON (BOARD MEMBER)

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 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Advocate equality for transgender ind.

What it reported doing in 2018

Provide education and resources

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.8%; rating input score 49
  • Program expense ratio: 82.2%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 40.6%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.8% of revenue deployed · 82.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $54K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.