Helping Women Period Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 473264925
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2016
- Location
- East Lansing, MI, USA
- Phone
- 5172950552
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Personal Social Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $404,027
- Expenses
- $321,971
- Assets
- $359,832
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SUSIE HYATT (PRESIDENT)
- LYSNE TAIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- LYSNE TAIT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $46,920 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Our purpose is to provide menstrual products to homeless, low-income, and at-risk people in lower Michigan. We provide tampons, pads, pantyliners, wipes, menstrual cups, period underwear, and bladder control products to 216 charity partners in 30 counties in lower Michigan. These partners include homeless and domestic violence shelters, food banks, support programs (like boys and girls club), and 40 schools (elementary, junior, and senior high schools).
What it reported doing in 2024
We advocate for menstrual equity the provision of free menstrual products in public places. We also work to educate the public and our public officials on menstruation and related issues. In 2023, our executive director provided testimony and served as a subject matter expert for the Michigan legislature. We were instrumental in getting a line item in the state budget for a pilot project . Originally called the helping women period pilot project (now the accessible period products pilot project), it provides grant money for 15 school districts to distribute monthly period kits to all menstruating 31a (at risk) students during the school year. We were able to get the pilot project renewed for 2024. In conjunction with several other advocacy groups, we held a Michigan period action day event to educate and inform about menstrual equity. We worked with student groups (both high school and college) to educate schools, colleges/universities, and governmental units on the need for free menstrual products in public spaces and encourage them to provide products. We also worked with numerous coalitions on national, state, and local menstrual equity education.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 69% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 73
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 62.7%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 78.7%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $11.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 34.8%; rating input score 35; 40th percentile among comparable filings
- 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 20.3%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 14.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 24.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 25.4% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 28.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 62.7% of revenue deployed · 78.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $253K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $47K · 9 people listed
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 5 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.