Womens Foreign Policy Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521818839
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2024292692
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis

Reported finances

Revenue
$404,594
Expenses
$361,991
Assets
$383,662
Liabilities
$49,232

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Alexandra Chopivsky (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Alexandra Chopivsky (Executive Director): $166,002 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Founded in 1995 wfpg works to expand the foreign policy dialogue across policital divides and generations and to support women at every stake of their careers. As champions of womens leadership we are proud of our role in expanding the constituency in internationalaffairs by convening global experts and creating a vital network of women with diverse backgrounds and experience

What it reported doing in 2025

Foreign policy programs the wfpg highlights the voices and contributions of women leaders and policy-makers through our substantive global issues programs. Program series include beyond the headlines which provides context for key international issues embassy series where ambassadors and diplomats address issues effecting their countries and regions state department briefings which highlight women officials and us policy objectives and our author series which covers new foreign policy books. Programs are held virtually and in-person in Washington dc and New York.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.9%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 41.2%; rating input score 41
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 45.5%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.9% of revenue deployed · 41.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $149K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $166K · 28 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 41 of 43 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.