The Washington Association of Black Journalists Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521573554
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
3474510554
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$207,067
Expenses
$125,035
Assets
$162,800
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Khorri A Atkinson (President)
  • Kelsey Nicole Nelson (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Khorri A Atkinson (President)
  • Kelsey Nicole Nelson (Vice President)
  • Javier Lewis (Treasurer)

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 Washington Association of Black Journalists WABJ is an organization for Black journalists journalism professors public relations professionals and student journalists in the Washington D.C. metro area. WABJ provides members with ongoing professional education opportunities and advocates for greater diversification of the profession. Additionally WABJ offers working journalists our colleagues in related fields and students a source of support and recognition and a forum for networking.

What it reported doing in 2024

Urban Journalism Workshop. As part of its mission WABJ shall continue to provide support direction and oversight of its legacy program the Urban Journalism Workshop UJW. This yearly program was launched by WABJ in 1986 with the mission to train students in the fundamentals of journalism. The committee shall also continue to award top-performing UJW students with scholarships contributing to the furtherance of their journalistic education.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 63% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 9
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 7%; rating input score 7
  • Program expense ratio: 11.6%; rating input score 12
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 39.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 7% of revenue deployed · 11.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $15K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 43 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.