Rosie the Riveter Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943335350
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Richmond, CA, USA
Phone
5105072276
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,140,198
Expenses
$1,315,469
Assets
$6,466,663
Liabilities
$215,352

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LETITIA MOORE (PRESIDENT)
  • MICHELLE FADELLI (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EBONY LEWIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SARAH PRITCHARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SARAH PRITCHARD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $200,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Rosie the riveter trust celebrates the stories of sacrifice, opportunity, and profound social change that took place in america during world war ii. The trust is the nonprofit partner of rosie the riveter/world war ii home front national historical park. Rosie the riveter trust honors the strong work ethic of people from all backgrounds who worked on the home front. Through historic preservation and educational programming, we inspire people to learn from history and apply those lessons in today's world.

What it reported doing in 2024

Maritime child development center - the center opened in 1943 to care for the children whose parents worked at the nearby kaiser shipyards. The organization completely restored and reopened it as a multi-use building in 2011 (a richmond revitalization effort). Today the maritime houses a small exhibit by the national park service of a wartime preschool classroom, the organization's office and richmond charter prep preschool and elementary school. In 1999, the organization was created to help establish the rosie the riveter/world war ii home front national historical park in 2000 with the goal to preserve park sites across richmond including the opening of the park visitor education center located in the oil house of the ford building complex.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.7%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 66.5%; rating input score 67
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 31.2%; rating input score 31; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.92; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.7% of revenue deployed · 66.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $875K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 11 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 31/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 57/100.