Grannys Girls Birth Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
853127896
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2021
Location
Louisville, KY, USA
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Health Support Services

Reported finances

Revenue
$230,832
Expenses
$262,563
Assets
$25,560
Liabilities
$534

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alexa HughesScisney (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Alexa HughesScisney (Executive Director)
  • Brittany Phillips (Assistant Director)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our organization was named in honor of our Granny midwives who paved the way for birth communities & birth professionals today. Our Granny Midwives acted as both community healers and baby catchers to the communities not accepted by society. They were the life line for black and rural communities. As their profession was colonized we carry on the legacy while ensuring BIPOC birthing people have a safe space as we fight the Black Infant & Maternal Health Crisis and the challenges or transitioning through the penal child welfare and transitional housing systems.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mommy meals typically refers to nutritious ready-to-eat meals designed for new or expecting mothers. They focus on balanced ingredients that support recovery energy and when applicable breastfeeding needs. These meals are usually planned for convenience helping parents save time while still eating well.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 48.4%; rating input score 48
  • Program expense ratio: 42.6%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: $59.89 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th 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: 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: -13.7%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -65.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 39.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 39.5% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 48.4% of revenue deployed · 42.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $112K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 40 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 40/100.