The Atlanta Womens Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
582389721
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
4045775000
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,600,723
Expenses
$2,925,239
Assets
$7,847,002
Liabilities
$1,559,515

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KARI B LOVE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • KARI B LOVE (CEO): $290,224 total reported compensation
  • DISHONDA HUGHES (CMO): $128,196 total reported compensation
  • ALLISON COBB (SVP, PC&C): $123,741 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the atlanta women's foundation is to be a catalyst for change in the lives of women and girls.

What it reported doing in 2024

AWFs ALL GIRLS FORWARD: Girls Empowerment Program empowers Atlanta's girls through education, socio-emotional development, and life skills programming. All Girls Forward supports local nonprofit organizations in providing the critical combination of services needed to ensure Atlanta's girls experiencing poverty can be on a level playing field with their peers. This combination of services includes access to the following: mental & physical health services; supplemental educational opportunities, including STEM activities; pregnancy prevention, college readiness support; mentoring; and financial literacy programming. Program objectives include empowering and educating a minimum of 5,000 girls at or below 200% of the federal poverty level; leveraging and expanding girl-focused programs in metro Atlanta with a priority on expanding services in Clayton County; creating new gender-based educational and health-related programs for girls; and developing a body of knowledge about the potential causes and solutions and making these findings available to policymaking entities. In its first year, the Program helped grantees serve over 2,300 girls impacted by poverty across Metro Atlanta.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.5%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 76.8%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.9%; rating input score 100; 42nd 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.4%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.68; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.5% of revenue deployed · 76.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $290K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 23 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.