Invisible Girl Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 273658257
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2012
- Location
- Raleigh, NC, USA
- Phone
- 3462069905
- Rating
- 73
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- International Relief
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $830,525
- Expenses
- $793,597
- Assets
- $1,080,336
- Liabilities
- $10,770
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JILL MCELYA (IGP FOUNDER/PRESIDENT)
- ABRAHAM GEORGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JILL MCELYA (IGP FOUNDER/PRESIDENT): $75,000 total reported compensation
- ABRAHAM GEORGE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $58,050 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Invisible girl project's (igp) mission is to save girls' lives and end female gendercide in india. Igp raises global awareness about this issue, partners with indian organizations that rescue and care for vulnerable girls, pursues justice, and empowers girls and women.
What it reported doing in 2025
Education and empowerment: india is a country with a vast population. In 2022, it surpassed china as the most populated country in the world. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the population remains undereducated or uneducated. Communities in these areas often continue to uphold uninformed traditions and practices. Through our years of work in india, we have observed that these practices frequently include a lack of value placed on females. In many communities, women and girls are viewed as less than men and boys, and are therefore not afforded the same opportunities for success and well-being.invisible girl project's vision is an india where girls are valued equally. As such, it is our responsibility to help change these realities wherever we can. Our education and empowerment programs are designed to educate, inform, and train people in the communities we serve to recognize - often for the first time - the discrimination faced by girls and young women. Our goal is to raise awareness of these harmful practices and traditions. Tactically, we aim to see an increasing number of girls receive an education early in life and begin to dream of a successful future - one that is likely very different from that of their mothers and grandmothers.we also strive to spark conversations within communities and initiate a transformation in mindset. Through our work across various regions in india, we have seen both anecdotal and measurable evidence - through studies and surveys - that change is happening. In one community in south india, a research study revealed a significant shift in attitudes: over five years, the percentage of girls enrolled in school rose from about 30% to nearly 90%.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 41% for direct work, and 59% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 62
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 45
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65%; rating input score 65
- Program expense ratio: 67.2%; rating input score 67
- Fundraising efficiency: $9.27 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
- 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: Pass
- May require repayment: Fail
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.3%; rating input score 99; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.36; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 16.8%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65% of revenue deployed · 67.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $533K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $75K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 6 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.