Washington Area Women's Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522028612
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023477737
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,488,894
Expenses
$1,875,577
Assets
$1,224,581
Liabilities
$84,209

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMARA WILDS LAWSON (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TAMARA WILDS LAWSON (PRESIDENT & CEO): $230,246 total reported compensation
  • CRYSTAL RUCKER (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT): $138,946 total reported compensation
  • SARAH WEATHERBY (DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS): $112,724 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To invest in the power of women and girls of color in the Washington, dc area.

What it reported doing in 2024

Early care and education funders collaborative - through the funders' collaborative model, the foundation works to increase the quality and capacity of and access to early care and education in the Washington, dc region. The collaborative is committed to and invests in projects that improve early childhood systems and infrastructure; ensure families have access to early education programs; and help early childhood educators to effectively meet the needs of all children.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 66% for direct work, and 34% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.3%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 76%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.5%; rating input score 99; 39th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 24.6%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.7%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.3% of revenue deployed · 76% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $230K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $116K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 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 57/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 38/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.