Wyoming Family Alliance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 920482721
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2023
- Forms available
- Form 990 2023
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY, USA
- Phone
- 3074598083
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $165,943
- Expenses
- $192,447
- Assets
- $180,101
- Liabilities
- $22,149
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Paul Grantz (Board President/Director)
- Nathan Winters (CEO/Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Nathan Winters (CEO/Executive Director): $110,438 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Mission of Wyoming Family Alliance (WFA) is to stand for a culture of life, family, and religious freedom, advocating for it through public policy and government stewardship and by cultivating effective and courageous leaders.
What it reported doing in 2023
This year, WFA has primarily dedicated itself to a broad range of non-political activities designed to enhance the well-being of communities and advance social welfare in accordance with its core pillars. These efforts often include educational initiatives, public awareness campaigns, and outreach programs addressing issues critical to life, family, education, and religious freedom. WFA organized workshops, sponsored community events, and collaborated with local groups to identify and address pressing needs. These activities not only promote the organization's core values but also foster a sense of unity and purpose among members, creating tangible benefits that extend far beyond electoral advocacy. WFA engaged in certain political campaign activities that promoted social welfare candidates who espoused the pillars of the organization. WFA endorsed candidates, made expenditures to support or oppose candidates, and sponsored political advertisements that were in line with our core beliefs. However, the majority of WFA's efforts and resources remain focused on advancing social welfare causes and community interests, rather than electoral politics.
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 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 79
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.1%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 52.5%; rating input score 53
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: -16%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 17.9%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -66.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -6.1% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.1% of revenue deployed · 52.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $101K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $110K · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and related organizations
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2023
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 38/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.