IBU Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274660946
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2017
Location
Charleston, SC, USA
Phone
8433278304
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$913,333
Expenses
$1,012,696
Assets
$187,116
Liabilities
$44,072

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Austin Randolph Walker (President)
  • Susan Hull Walker (President)
  • Beth Lin (Chief Executive Ofiicer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Beth Lin (Chief Executive Ofiicer): $120,000 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 mission is to expand markets for global women artisans, and help build their capacity for success with structural enhancements such as workspace and training.

What it reported doing in 2024

Travel and Cultural Exchange with Artisans: Ibu took 22 supporters to Uzbekistan in October 2024 to meet our artisan partners, become educated in their techniques, and learn about their challenges in producing and marketing goods for their livelihood. Over eleven days, the group visited artisan partners to learn ikat dyeing and weaving, pottery, and embroidery in Tashkent, Margilan, Samarkand, and Bukhara. 12 travelers continued on to visit camel hair weavers in Turkmenistan. In May, Ibu led twelve supporters to Morocco to meet our artisan partners there, in Sefrou, Marrakech and Ourika. A full program educated travelers in the history and practice of soutache embroidery, as well as weaving and dyeing, and the impact of these artisanal crafts in employing women who have not had access to education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 61
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 64.3%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.6% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.4% of revenue deployed · 64.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $651K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.