Women's Learning Partnership for Rights Development and Peace Ltd

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522199581
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bethesda, MD, USA
Phone
3016542774
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Societal Benefit

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$792,413
Expenses
$1,062,419
Assets
$788,963
Liabilities
$46,882

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEILA AUSTIN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ALLISON HOROWSKI (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEILA AUSTIN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $110,000 total reported compensation
  • ALLISON HOROWSKI (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,957 total reported compensation
  • MAHNAZ AFKHAMI (ADVISORY ROLE (END 7/24)): $9,199 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 empower women through dialogue, choice, and participation to restructure their roles and to improve their status in their families, communities and societies.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy and networking program: advances human rights and gender equality by supporting women leaders and organizations to advocate for legal reform, influence public policy, and shape public discourse. Through coalitions and cross-border networks, participants amplify their impact and drive changes in laws, policies, and social norms.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 89% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, and 28% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 20
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 89.1%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $78.92 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -34.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 89.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $947K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.