Sisters of the Skies Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823401289
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2018
Location
Pearland, TX, USA
Phone
8557673597
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Youth Development Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$675,275
Expenses
$466,536
Assets
$781,858
Liabilities
$102,698

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Nia Gilliam-Wordlaw (Board MemberCo-Founder)
  • Angel Hughes (Board MemberCo-Founder)
  • Theresa Claiborne (Board MemberPresident)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of Sisters of the Skies, Inc is to increase the number of African American female pilots (which currently makes up less than 1% of all US-based professional pilots) through flight training scholarship, mentorship, and outreach.

What it reported doing in 2024

Girls Rock Wings (GRoW) GRoW is an annual aviation/stem outreach program where girls of color between the ages of 10-18 years of age are exposed to the field of aviation. The girls experience a discovery flight with a Certified Flight Instructor (CFI) who is a woman of color, tour an air traffic control tower, develop a flight plan and fly that flight plan in a simulator, and tour a static display. The 2024 GRoW initiatives were held in two cities: Detroit, Michigan and Houston, Texas. GRoW Detroit was sponsored by Delta Airlines and held at the Willow Run Airport on May 18, 2024. The event was served by approximately 103 volunteers. A total of 62 girls participated in the event. GRoW Houston was sponsored by United Airlines as a part of the United Aviate Academy. The event was held on October 12, 2024 at the IAH Airport. 64 girls participated and were served by 96 volunteers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 91% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 32
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 30.9%; rating input score 31
  • Program expense ratio: 42.6%; rating input score 43
  • Fundraising efficiency: $2.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 13th 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 30.9%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.68; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.6% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.9% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 30.9% of revenue deployed · 42.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $199K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 31/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 7/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.