Hawaii Women in Filmmaking

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463144513
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Honolulu, HI, USA
Phone
8089900384
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Arts, Culture, and Humanities N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$168,156
Expenses
$132,611
Assets
$41,500
Liabilities
$203

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anne Weber-Yarbrough (President and director)
  • Hilary Hacker (Vice President and director)

People named in this filing

  • Akiemi Glenn (Director)
  • Kim Moa (Director)
  • Meeta Vu (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Educate and encourage women and girls to tell stories and express themselves through film.

What it reported doing in 2025

Fiscal Sponsorship - As a fiscal sponsor, Hawaii Women in Filmmaking (HWF) collects and administers public donations on behalf of film projects. Public donations, less an administrative fee, are then remitted to filmmakers to fund their film projects. in 2025, HWF provided fiscal sponsorship funding to two filmmakers. One film project was a documentary about a female Olympic athlete. The other film project recounted a story form native Hawaiian mythology.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. 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: 30
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.2%; rating input score 27
  • Program expense ratio: 35.8%; rating input score 36

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.1%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.3%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.2% of revenue deployed · 35.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $47K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.