Women Refugee Care

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
474084932
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Providence, RI, USA
Phone
4015638570
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Ethnic, Immigrant Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,251,839
Expenses
$1,305,741
Assets
$206,374
Liabilities
$168,896

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ALINE BINYUNGU (CO-FOUNDER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CHUKA OKOYE (PRESIDENT)
  • KEITH COOPER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CLEMENT SHABANI (CO-FOUNDER PROGRAM DIRECTOR): $92,748 total reported compensation
  • ALINE BINYUNGU (CO-FOUNDER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $72,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Providing services and support to refugee families newly resettled in Rhode Island, based on the belief that strong and informed women and mothers promote healthy and productive families and communities. Women's refugee care has a special focus on women, girls and promoting gender equality.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education program and youth mentoring: women refugee care works to assist families so that every refugee child is in school and learning. This work entails sensitizing school administrators and teachers on the unique background of refugee children. It also involves educating parents and children about the education system. Women refugee care also acts as an advocate for the student and provide tutoring support to the children. Women refugee care also provides youth mentoring program and connects volunteers, college students and refugee youth through workshops.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 16
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Program expense ratio: 88.6%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.84 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 78.6%; rating input score 79; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 69.3%; rating input score 69; 36th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.16; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.82; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.6%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.1% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.4% of revenue deployed · 88.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $285K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $93K · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 27 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompDisqualPersons column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.