Ywca Pierce County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910565026
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tacoma, WA, USA
Phone
2532724181
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,720,502
Expenses
$4,110,667
Assets
$23,634,531
Liabilities
$10,079,914

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE LIU (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL ELGUERA (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • CINDY GRADY (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LINDIWE CHAZA-JANGIRA (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDIWE CHAZA-JANGIRA (CEO): $155,559 total reported compensation
  • NORA L ROBERTO (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $126,462 total reported compensation
  • KARIN E WHITE (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $120,081 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Transforming lives through safety, healing and empowerment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Legal services: the ywca legal program helps survivors of intimate partner violence understand and navigate the civil legal system, including domestic violence protection orders and family law cases that are in pierce county superior court. Our advocates can help with divorce/legal separation, child custody/parenting plans, child support, spousal maintenance, modifications, contempt, paternity, address confidentiality program, protection orders and safety planning.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.1%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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: -10.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.75; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.43; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.8%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.1% of revenue deployed · 71.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $156K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.