Her Ed
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 873243603
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 2604507183
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $200,000
- Expenses
- $199,247
- Assets
- $37,422
- Liabilities
- $8,050
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chelsea Richardson (Board Member & Fractional CEO/CFO)
Highest reported compensation
- Lauren Baker (Board Member & Fractional COO): $106,875 total reported compensation
- Chelsea Richardson (Board Member & Fractional CEO/CFO): $39,414 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A support bridge for midlife women through micro-grants that provide stability and agency.
What it reported doing in 2025
Micro-grants for hardship assistance, Approved grants are paid directly to the service provider or vendor for the specified expense rather than to the individual.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 56
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 43
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 51.2%; rating input score 51
- Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
- Fundraising efficiency: $500 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 73.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 51.2% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.