The Institute on Women

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273031121
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2014
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Columbus, OH, USA
Phone
6142039115
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$824
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$3,045

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Julie Graber (CEO)
  • Cynthia T Silver (Board Member and President)

People named in this filing

  • Julie Graber (CEO)
  • Dale Abrams (Board Member and Treasurer)
  • Cynthia T Silver (Board Member and President)

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 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of The Institute on Women is to improve the lives of the 5.9 million women and girls in Ohio by serving as a data-rich resource for strategic change.

What it reported doing in 2014

Development of Central Ohio Leadership Census to document women in leadership roles in five sectors: public companies, private companies, higher education institutions, nonprofit organizations, and politics. Census documented need for additional efforts aimed at increasing number of women on the boards and serving as executive officers of central Ohio organizations. Results were reported at WELD Keynote and Leadership conferences, and at other meetings of local organizations. Census will be updated annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
No positive adjusted resources. The filing reports no positive adjusted operating resources.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 7
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 58.1%; rating input score 58

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -68.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -77.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -50.4% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $479 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2011 to 2014
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.