Womens March West Virginia

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
823088868
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Charles Town, WV, USA
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$71,025
Expenses
$52,443
Assets
$18,582

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Robin Cutlip (Board Chair)
  • Thomas Ramey (Board Member)
  • Mackenzie Hall (Board Member)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

MISSION: Rooted in Appalachia Peoples Unity Project envisions a future where all marginalized voices are heard valued and empowered. VISION: Through advocacy education and grassroots action we strive to dismantle systemic barriers and build a more just and inclusive society. By fostering solidarity and equity we create lasting change that uplifts communities and ensures everyone has a seat at the table. Formerly known as Womens March West Virginia

What it reported doing in 2025

Peoples Unity Project organized and operated community-based programs focused on civic engagement outreach and public education. During the tax year the organization coordinated program activities facilitated community participation and managed operations necessary to deliver services despite having no full-time staff. Program efforts were carried out through contracted services facility-related expenses and direct program support costs. Total program service expenses for the year were $52,443.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.8%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 26.2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.35; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.8% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.