National Womans Party
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 530116540
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2020–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2020
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025461210
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Government and Public Administration
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,326
- Expenses
- $132,086
- Assets
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Jessica Abrahams (Vice President)
- Susan Carter (President)
- Alicia Daly (Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Jessica Abrahams (Vice President)
- Joanne Burke (Treasurer)
- Lucy Calautti (Director)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The primary purpose of national woman's party nwp is to educate the public, promote recognition of equality of the sexes and to preserve the nwp's extensive collection of suffrage banners, archives, and artifacts documenting the continuing effort by women and men of all races, religions, and backgrounds toward full equality for women under the law.
What it reported doing in 2020
Collections Care - NWP is tasked with the care and preservation of the unique collection which documents the suffrage movement and the campaign for the legal equality for women.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 8
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 83.3%; rating input score 83
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1,988%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -15.3% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -19.9% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $110K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.