League of Women Voters of New Jersey
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 221153223
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Trenton, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 6093943303
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $693,878
- Expenses
- $455,714
- Assets
- $473,119
- Liabilities
- $60,122
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
24 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JENNIFER M HOWARD (PRESIDENT)
- IVETH MOSQUERA (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT THRU 6/6/25)
- DEBORAH MCCOMBER (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT THRU 6/6/25)
- MARIEL MERCADO-GUEVARA (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT AS OF 6/7/25)
- LAUREN F NANCE (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT AS OF 6/7/25)
- JESSICA BURNS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- JESSICA BURNS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,141 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Through grassroots people-powered advocacy and organizing, lwvnj trains, mobilizes, and educates advocates to have a greater voice in government and influence public policy.
What it reported doing in 2024
The league of women voters of New Jersey promotes civic responsibility through informed participation in government and action on selected policy issues. Public policy: lwvnj works to build a multiracial, multigenerational, multicultural, inclusive democracy by advocating for state legislation that ensures that everyone has access to the ballot box. Lwvnj leads and participates in powerful state coalitions working on a wide range of policy issues. Membership: lwvnj builds people-power by growing a diverse network of empowered and organized members. The league's enduring vitality and resonance comes from its grassroots nature, with members operating at the national, state, and local levels working towards the goal of "making democracy work.organizing and training: lwvnj trains and mobilizes activists to influence public policy and to fight for a more inclusive democracy.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 60
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 49.4%; rating input score 49
- Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 14; 14th 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: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 34.3%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 23.9% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 49.4% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $343K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 24 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 49/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 14/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.