Ywca Northern New Jersey

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
221494725
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hackensack, NJ, USA
Phone
2018811700
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,878,689
Expenses
$6,175,389
Assets
$4,978,271
Liabilities
$3,790,733

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HELEN ARCHONTOU (CEO)
  • DR CHRISTINE THORPE (BOARD PRESIDENT TERM EXP 7/28)
  • MICHELLE NAGGIAR (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT TERM EXP 11/25)
  • JANET HILL SMITH (2ND VICE PRESIDENT TERM EXP 9/26)

Highest reported compensation

  • HELEN ARCHONTOU (CEO): $326,611 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ywca is dedicated to fighting systemic racism, advancing gender equity, and enhancing the wellbeing of communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Trauma informed care: offering clinical care focused on the unique needs of survivors of sexual, racial, and institutional trauma, helping them feel recognized, empowered, and supported. Equity: promoting fairness and justice for all through empowerment, economic sufficiency, leadership development as well as creating allies to remove systemic barriers that reinforce racism. Advocacy & education: shifting culture through educational campaigns, community organizing, and mission-linked policy advocacy.

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 program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -26.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.76; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.4% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $5.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $327K · 16 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $554K reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 40 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 51/100.