Girls Who Hike Virginia
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 874793465
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Alexandria, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7039517283
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Environmental Education and Outdoor Survival Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $53,277
- Expenses
- $46,570
- Assets
- $29,810
- Liabilities
- $1,681
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jennifer Loving Wade (President)
- Alejandra Villanueva (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Jennifer Loving Wade (President)
- Alejandra Villanueva (Vice President)
- Carolyn Mollen (Treasurer)
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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To educate, connect, and empower women+ in Virginia to grow and heal their minds, bodies, and souls-both on the trail or off.
What it reported doing in 2025
Ambassador & Community Building Program: Ambassadors are volunteer leaders who help bring GWHVA's mission to life by creating welcoming spaces where women+ can learn, connect, and grow. Ambassadors lead hikes and other events on behalf of GWHVA to build confidence and community among participants-whether by sharing trail tips, starting a conversation about wellness, or simply creating a space for connection. Ambassadors are provided training and basic supplies to support their events. In 2025, over 80 ambassadors led nearly 300 events with over 2,400 total participants.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 76% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and liabilities are high compared with assets.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 78.1%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 89.4%; rating input score 89
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.6%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 18; 18th 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: 78.1% of revenue deployed · 89.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $42K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 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.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.