United Nations Womens Guild

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
116037588
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
9177964155
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
International Relief

Reported finances

Revenue
$90,301
Expenses
$92,769
Assets
$73,119
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNETTE HAYRAPETIAN (PRESIDENT UNWG)
  • ELEN SUNG OK KWON (VICE PRESIDENT UNWG)

People named in this filing

  • ANNETTE HAYRAPETIAN (PRESIDENT UNWG)
  • ELEN SUNG OK KWON (VICE PRESIDENT UNWG)
  • GENOVEVA WALLACH (FUNDRAISING CHAIR)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Members of the United Nations Womens Guild are spouses of U.N. Staff and female staff of the U.N. They volunteer in the Guilds Shop in the General Assembly building and at other fundraising events to raise money for the needy children round the world.Funds are sent to various childrens charity organizations.

What it reported doing in 2025

Charities in Ghana Haiti Ecuador Peru Haiti Guatemala Thailand Serbia Romania Bangladesh India Pakistan Philippines Cameroon Senegal Indonesia

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 88.9%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $271.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: -2.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.79; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 88.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $82K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 39 of 44 current checks pass · 5 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.