Lift Womens Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352164486
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rock Island, IL, USA
Phone
3097888385
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$73,534
Expenses
$179,217
Assets
$2,232,789
Liabilities
$134,489

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KAREN M HAYES (DIRECTOR/FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • MATTHEW MENDENHALL (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANGIE JOHNSON (FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • AMY JONES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN A FRIEDERICH (FORMER DIRECTOR): $782,369 total reported compensation
  • KAREN M HAYES (DIRECTOR/FORMER PRESIDENT): $500,209 total reported compensation
  • ANGIE JOHNSON (FORMER PRESIDENT): $442,060 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 drive positive transformation in the lives, families, and communities of women by empowering them through economic opportunities and promoting gender equity.

What it reported doing in 2024

Micro-lending program - working in partnership with a local credit union, the program provides collateral to support loans to women-lead businesses who would not otherwise qualify for a business loan. The lift womens foundation also offers business coaching as a part of this program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.94 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 21st 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: -143.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.46; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 397.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.9% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $159K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $782K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.