Women Deliver Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
264462256
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
6466959100
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,747,692
Expenses
$4,654,561
Assets
$3,262,120
Liabilities
$203,260

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MALIHA KHAN (President & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • MALIHA KHAN (President & CEO): $378,212 total reported compensation
  • Kimberley Lufkin (Director, Communications): $189,493 total reported compensation
  • Fauzia Dawood (Director, External Relations): $183,855 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Women deliver is a global feminist advocacy organization with a clear mission: to ensure that every self-identifying girl and woman has control over her body and life. See organization's full mission statement in schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2024

All of our work, across our teams, feeds into the three overarching workstreams: Collective Action for Change, Emerging Leaders for Change, and Convening for Change programs. For instance: Multilateral Engagement - Global Policy and Advocacy: Our overarching approach to global policy and advocacy is to identify and leverage key policy windows to drive meaningful progress on gender equality, including by influencing governments, convening diverse stakeholders, and amplifying the work of grassroots partners and Emerging Leaders. Women Deliver continuously engages stakeholders, decision-makers, influencers, and those outside the community of already engaged champions to advocate for improved policies and programs and increased financial and political commitments for advancing gender equality and SRHR. We leverage our convenings, communications, and advocacy platforms as spaces to facilitate more inclusive decision-making. We also advise and influence governments, multilaterals, and private sector decision-makers. For more effective advocacy for gender equality and SRHR, we develop and promote user-centered methodologies for strengthening capacity and knowledge sharing. We create spaces for connection and peer-to-peer learning, reach advocates with diverse experiences and identities, and support their ability to influence at different levels of decision- and policy-making. Finally, our advocacy harnesses the most rigorous and compelling evidence. We collate and translate the latest data and information into clear-sighted messages to build the case for prioritizing gender equality and the health and rights of girls and women. And when the data do not exist, we call for more attention to overlooked topics and partner to generate new evidence. We focus on what works, using advocacy grounded in evidence to shift policies and drive investments.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Pass
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 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: 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: -166.3%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $378K · 15 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $265K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.