Over 1.8 million nonprofits and charities for donors, volunteers and funders

National Council for Research on Women Inc

Claim This Nonprofit

More Info

Add to Favorites

Share this Nonprofit

Donate

Nonprofit Overview

Causes: Civil Rights, Education, Women, Womens Rights, Womens Studies

Mission: Women's voices are too often excluded from public discourse. Gains for women and girls, made over decades of struggle, are being systematically rolled back. From human and civil rights to economic security, from reproductive rights to equal opportunity, from violence against women to leadership in science, academia, and business, we still have much to do.

Programs: Identity: addressing discrimination based on gender (including intersections with race/ethnicity, class, ability, nationality, age, sexual orientation, religion, gender identity, immigration status, etc).

thriving environments: from personal safety (e. G. , sexual assault) to community (e. G. , civic leadership) to global (e. G. , climate change) concerns.

economic well-being: issues of economic justice, work fairness, and business leadership.

Community Stories

15 Stories from Volunteers, Donors & Supporters

66

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

Regender is a Do Nothing, Say Nothing, No Comment Non-Profit. My daughter has a degree in economics from Cornell and an MBA from Stanford and had to sign a forced arbitration employment contract in order to get her job on Wall Street! I have tried to get non-profits like Regender to take up this awful end run around the constitution , but they really don't care; they listen and say no comment. Forced arbitration deprives women of their most basic rights and makes many employee and consumer protections unenforceable. The laws that protect us from discrimination based on age, sex, religion , disability, and unequal pay for equal work, sch as the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay act, become meaningless and unenforceable in arbitration.

No comment Regender? Banking, insurance and financial corporations are forcing their employees into silence with non-disparagement agreements, not to participate in class actions and strict gag orders in settlements. Companies fire complainers and seal damaging documents that would end up in a public court file. And corporations hire the arbitrators who are friendly to these corporations. Kathy Frazier has filed a class-action lawsuit against Morgan Stanley, accusing it of making "an end run around the civil rights laws" with a forced employee arbitration contract. Instead of changing what Ms. Frazier referred to as "entrenched discrimination" at the company, Morgan Stanley "has sought to quietly institute mandatory arbitration and a class action waiver," according to the complaint which was filed last month in the United States District Court in San Francisco.

So if my daughter is harassed by her male coworkers or finds out that she has not been payed as much as her male colleagues; shush woman and keep it zipped. Lawyers for the Fox News chairman Roger Ailes filed a motion on Friday arguing that the sexual harassment lawsuit filed against him by former anchor, Gretchen Carlson, should be moved from a New Jersey Court into federal court and submitted for arbitration. Mr. Ailes's lawyers said that Ms. Carlson's suit , which they called a "tar-and-feather campaign," was a breach of her contract. the contract, they said, included a confidentiality agreement stipulating that any disputes should first go into arbitration.

Please support real non-profits like Alliance for Justice and Public Citizen. Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, Time Warner Cable, Citibank all use arbitration contracts. What about Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Blackrock? To the women of Regender: what if your daughter was placed in that position? Re:Gender claims that it "works to end gender inequity, and discrimination against girls and women, by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference." Yeah really?

125

Volunteer

Rating: 1

Wells Fargo is a proud corporate supporter of NCRW (aka Regender) and Regender should be ashamed of itself for working with and accepting money from this company considering the tremendous damage the company has inflicted on working women in the USA when it came to the mortgage fiasco and now the now the subprime auto loan industry. The NYT's has recently run a series of articles highlighting how companies like Wells Fargo have focused on the subprime auto loan market in the US and how they are taking full advantage of the weakest people in the US; low income working women who have poor credit. Who can afford to pay usury interest rates of 39% + and penalties on top of late fees? Is that helping girls and women succeed in life?

See http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/in-a-subprime-bubble-for-used-cars-unfit-borrowers-pay-sky-high-rates/

Taking advantage of poor hardworking women (mostly minority women) who desperately need a car to get to work and charge usury interest rates companies like Wells Fargo rip off women and leave them at the mercy of the repo man as well as credit collecting services. It is modern day slavery as women are forced to pay insane interest rates on autos that are used and old as well as often non-functional. So thank you Regender for accepting funding from Wells Fargo who have done so much damage to women in the US even with the hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements with the Federal government and the States. Shame on you all that work at REGENDER. Destroying peoples lives leading to bankruptcy and loss of ones future? How does that mesh with REGENDER's mission statement?

190

Volunteer

Rating: 1

Regender is a fraud and acts as a front organization for corporations. They removed my comments and my review on its Regender Facebook page! No more comments and no reviews anymore from August 29, 2014 on its Facebook page -just Likes and Share this or that article! They also refuse to answer any questions about their phony operation front for corporations. Call (212) 785-7335 and someone will take your name and say they will get back to you but they don't. The operator says no one is here to speak to you and it goes to voice messaging and you get no call back. They come to work after 10AM then lunch is next some meetings then as 4:30PM approaches it is time to scoot. They still do not have their current 990 financials on the Regender website and have one that is two years old!

I don't know why we need non-profits like DiversityInc, Catalyst, and Regender (NCRW) acting as fronts for corporations like Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, Time Warner, Bank of America etc. and running defense for them while these companies refuse to reveal their employee diversity makeup of their workforce. Ebay, Facebook, Apple, Twitter, Google, Linkedin, Pandora, Pinterest, as well as other corporations have come clean so why not corporations that fund Regender? Regender is being hypocritical and deceitful since this runs counter to their mission statement of focusing on the sources of discrimination. As other reviewers have mentioned, all Regender has to do is look at its own corporate sponsors. All publicly traded companies must file their diversity information with the EEOC.gov but are not required to make them public. So what are they hiding?

The sad reality is that the people who run this non-profit have sold out for attractive paychecks. Where is the transparency here at guidestar? Regender has not posted their latest 990 financials. Nealy all their $ come from corporations. The executives at Regender are out of touch and out of mind and have little understanding with work- family balance issues that the average woman has to deal with. Most have no children and are not married and have little experience in the for profit dog eat dog world. If corporations published their diversity numbers and hired women of color then there would be no need for a Catalyst, Diversityinc or Regender.

NCRW AKA Regender has always been a corporate front claiming that it had 120 + member centers in the U.S.A, 3,000 affiliates, and 200+ international centers. Over the years they lost most corporate funding:

Past Institutional Funders Member Centers Affiliated Organizations Corporate Circle Presidents Circle


NCRW Funders

Aetna Life & Casualty Company
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
American Express Foundation
Apple Computers, Inc.
Arthur Ross Foundation
Asia Foundation
Ballantine/Del Ray/Fawcett/Ivy Books
Boehm Foundation
Steven H. & Alida Brill Foundation
Caritas Fund for the Tides Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Clorox Foundation
Compton Foundation Inc.
Charles A. Dana Foundation
The James R. Dougherty Foundation, Jr. Foundation
Dover Fund
The Equitable Financial Companies
First Interstate Bank of California Foundation
The Ford Foundation
Girl's Best Friend Foundation
The Global Fund for Women
William T. Grant Foundation
Mary W. Harriman Foundation
Harper Collins Publishers
Mary W. Harriman Foundation
The Hygeia Foundation
International Business Machines (IBM)
James Irvine Foundation
Kellogg Foundation
Levi Strauss Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Lipper & Company,L.P.
Joyce Mertz -Gilmore Foundation
Metropolitan Life Foundation
Mobil Corporation
Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Foundation
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
Ms. Foundation for Women
National Science Foundation
New York Community Trust
Nokomis Foundation
Norton & Company
Pacific Bell
Partnership for Democracy
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
Ploughshares Fund
Primerica Foundation
The Prudential Foundation
Remmer Family Foundation
Rockefeller Family Fund
Rockefeller Foundation
Russell Sage Foundation
Samuel Rubin Foundation
Sara Lee Foundation
Scheuer Foundation, Inc.
Sears Roebuck and Company
The Sister Fund
Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust
Jules and Doris Stein Foundation
The L.J. Skaggs & Mary C. Skaggs Foundation
The Pew Charitable Trusts
The Prudential Insurance Company
Transamerica Leasing, Inc.
United Nations Development Programme
Valentine Foundation
Walter Laband Foundation
W.W. Norton & Inc.
Women's Bureau, United States Department of Labor
Women's Division, Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church
The Xerox Foundation

257

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

As a retired woman who has worked for two of the companies in Regender's Corporate Circle I can agree with the other reviewers who have pointed out the contradictions between these corporation's actions in reality compared to Regender's mission statement.

A lawsuit filed in December, accuses Citigroup of engaging in a "continuous pattern" of discrimination since at least 2004 by targeting minorities for high-cost mortgage loans, violating the U.S. Fair Housing Act. L.A. is seeking damages from the bank for the costs of extra services and lost tax revenue in blighted neighborhoods. Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan were hit with similar lawsuits by the city of Los Angeles.

Prudential insurance was hit by a rash of lawsuits involving discrimination. The marathon litigation stems from a dispute in the late 1990s after agents left Prudential because they said the company pressured agents not to sell insurance to minorities. A total of 359 agents were involved in the original conflict. And the battle goes on.

The Wells Fargo settlement ($175M) with the nation’s largest home mortgage lender is rooted in a lawsuit filed four years ago by Baltimore over fair-lending violations. It culminated in what federal officials called “systemic discrimination” spanning 36 states and involving more than 34,000 minority customers over five years.

Prudential Insurance Co. has historically been battered by forces from the outside — specifically, lawsuits alleging fraudulent sales practices such as "churning." The company has been torn from the inside by current and former employees in Minnesota who have stepped forward with individual lawsuits alleging not only rampant race, gender, and age discrimination, but also wild violations in the company's Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process, a system that resulted from the company's 1996 $2 billion class action settlement. Being a woman and working for Prudential can be a painful and arduous experience. For some women working for Prudential is a Horror.

Corporations violate and harm women every day of the year. They get fined or are sued and just pay up and move on without admitting and wrong doing. It is nice to know that there are non-profits like Regender (NCRW) that take money from these corporations so that these corporations can buy Good Will and appear to be interested in ending discrimination against women and girls. What a laugh. How these women who work at Regender (NCRW) sleep at night is a mystery to me. These types of people will take money from almost anyone or any institution no matter what.

215

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

Chubb is a corporate circle member of Regender yet in 2006 Federal Insurance Co.a unit of Chubb defended Donald Sterling's 2006 housing discrimination suit. How does that jive with Regender's goal of ending discrimination and working towards a fair playing field? If you don't believe it here is the link http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20120927/NEWS07/120929928?tags=|68|75|76|303
Why do companies sell insurance policies that protect against owners who are sued for racial discrimination? Minorities were blocked from renting and they were treated to substandard inhumane conditions. Elderly black women were forced to live without running water and in rat and vermin infested apartments! Young innocent African-American girls were deprived of their rights and humanity.


A Chubb Corp. unit had the duty to defend a landlord in a discrimination case under its excess policy because it had the only policy that explicitly provided coverage for discrimination, a California appellate court has ruled.

The decision Monday in Federal Insurance Co. v. Steadfast Insurance Co. and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp. by the state appellate court in Los Angeles related to a lawsuit filed in 2006 by the U.S. Justice Department against landlord Donald T. Sterling and other parties charging housing discrimination on the base of race, national origin and family status.
Complaint's accusations

The complaint charged that the defendants refused to rent to non-Korean prospective tenants, misrepresented the availability of apartment units to non-Korean prospective tenants, and provided “inferior treatment” to non-Korean tenants in the Koreatown section of Los Angeles, according to the DOJ.

The lawsuit also charged the defendants had refused to rent to African-Americans and misrepresented the availability of apartment units to African-American prospective tenants in Beverly Hills.

The Sterling defendant's primary insurers — Schaumburg, Ill.-based Steadfast Insurance Co., a unit of Zurich North America, and Liberty Surplus Insurance Corp., a unit of Boston-based Liberty Mutual Group — insured against claims for wrongful eviction, wrongful entry and invasion of the “right of privacy occupancy,” according to the ruling.

Federal, the excess and umbrella insurer, insured against those claims and also specifically insured against claims for discrimination, said the ruling.

213

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

Regender's Corporate circle member Time Warner does not seem to mirror Regender's Mission statement:
Re:Gender, formerly National Council for Research on Women, works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference.
Time Warner promotes and sells pornography that exploits women and demeans them with their "adult entertainment" on Cable TV. Real & Real on Demand with no scripted story lines to get in the way, watch real people in steamy situations. Ten & Ten on Demand, Hustler TV, Hustler video, Evil Angel, Playboy TV, Digital sin, Zero Tolerance, Penthouse TV and Penthouse on Demand, Vivid TV Vivid Girls Check out the schedule:

Raven Alexis Unleashed

Five of the horniest brunettes, including sexy Raven Alexis, get pounded by throbbing rods until they cream. Filled with three-way action and deep-throat gagging, these tight babes scream for more hard meat to unleash their fantasies. Shame on Lisa Garcia Quiroz!

Ten ways that Sports Illustrated disrespects Women: 10. Sports Illustrated disrespects women through sex-discriminatory coverage of women's sports. (Fewer than 10 percent of Sports Illustrated pages are devoted to women's athletic achievements.) SI is owned by TimeWarner.

9. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by displaying demeaning stereotypes of female sexuality. The swimsuit issue features women models posed not as athletes of strength, skill, and endurance but as playthings--in costumes no one could possibly swim in competitively.

8. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue disrespects women by showing women's primary value to be their value as sex objects.

7. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by photographing their bodies as if they are merely body parts--breasts, buttocks, and crotches.

6. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by encouraging boys and young men to view women as sex toys and by turning voyeurism into a sport.

5. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue disrespects women by imitating an idea of women that originates in pornography. Mimicking magazines like Playboy and Penthouse, Sports Illustrated spreads out women's bodies on the page for male "readers" to ogle at.

4. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by numbing men to women's humanity.

3. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by exhibiting women to men as the "other"--as if women were a different species from the "real" athletes who are men.

2. Sports Illustrated disrespects women by sending a message to girls and young women that no matter how much they excel in athletics, all that matters is how they look to men.

1. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue disrespects women by directly contradicting Time-Warner's corporate hype, which claims the magazine stands for serious sports journalism and respects the ability and dignity of women and girls in athletics. If that were true, where is the magazine with all the scantily clad men wearing nothing but Speedos?

And lets not forget GoldmanSach's 16% ownership of Backpage.com. THE biggest forum for sex trafficking of under-age girls in the United States appears to be a Web site called Backpage.com. This emporium for girls and women — some under age or forced into prostitution. And what about that Bloomberg class-action lawsuit, which was filed in 2007 on behalf of 65 employees who argued that the business had engaged in a pattern of discrimination against pregnant women who took maternity leave. Mr. Bloomberg was also sued in 1997 by a sales executive who claimed that after she became pregnant, he urged her to have an abortion, telling her, “Kill it!” Mr. Bloomberg adamantly denied any wrongdoing and settled the case out of court for an undisclosed amount. GoldmanSachs and Bloomberg are proud members of Regender's Corporate Circle.

179

Volunteer

Rating: 1

Changing the name of the National Council of Research on Women (NCRW) to Regender was a big mistake. Call it rebranding, a marketing gimmick but I think it was a terrible mistake. Even if it is true that NCRW did not have a true national network in many states in the U.S., they should have kept the name and worked on building a nationally based member center infrastructure instead of copping out and just changing their look and logo. This non-profit should really start from scratch and get a professional dedicated team together in order to bring back NCRW to its rightful core values.

NCRW needs to hire Hispanic and African Americans and focus on the most disadvantaged population of women in the United States- minority women who are in a crisis situation in relation to areas of discrimination, equal pay, violence against women, poverty, child abuse, upward mobility, education... Google just released their diversity numbers and just 1% of its tech staff is black and just 2% is Hispanic. I agree with another reviewer who demanded that Regender's Corporate Circle should release their job diversity figures. How many women of color are working at BlackRock, Goldman Sachs and Bloomberg? How many women period? Lets have some transparency and honesty here. Regender should insist that all its corporate members on the board or Presidents and Corporate circle come clean and release their job diversity breakdowns. One former female board member and owner of Aptmetrics has only white men as the top executives and hardly any women of color working at the company-not an example of diversity at the work place.

A recent study by HRxAnalysts, a Bodega Bay, Calif.-based analyst firm covering the HR industry entitled- What HR Thinks and Feels: The 2011 HRxAnalysts Psychographic Survey of HR Professionals reveals that women now account for 71 percent of all HR professionals. They found that the typical HR professional is a 47 year old white woman. The root causes of workplace discrimination is that white men dominate the executive positions in companies but it a sad reality that these white women to a large degree contribute to the problem since they go along with these white men who do not hire women of color and hire people that they identify with- their own kind.

Review from Guidestar

171

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

The number of women who experience sexual assault on campus is about one in four. After months of advocating for changes in the way the administration handles cases of sexual assault, 23 Columbia and Barnard students have filed a federal complaint that alleges violations of Title IX, Title II and the Clery Act by the university. Lee Bollinger is Columbia University's 19th President and member of Regender's President's Circle.
Regender's mission statement is: Re:Gender works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. So maybe Regender should ask where has Lee Bollinger been for the last few years? The University allows accused perpetrators of sexual assault to remain on campus, has too-lenient sanctions for perpetrators, discourages victims from reporting assault and denies accommodations to students with mental health disabilities (which they say result from their attacks). The students also claim that LGBTQ students are discriminated against in advising, counseling and Greek Life.

Review from Guidestar

183

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

Is Regender really a front for the financial corporations that support this non-profit? Its support comes from corporations such as Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg, Bank of America, RBS, Blackrock, Citi, Wells Fargo... Now that they opened up their membership to the public and it is free and they have no member centers paying dues what do they stand for? Google just released its employee data voluntarily and the figures show that only 29.7% of its labor force is made up of women. Only 1.9% of Google's workforce is black! 2.8% are Hispanic!

WHY DOESN'T REGENDER ASK ITS CORPORATE CIRCLE TO VOLUNTARILY RELEASE THEIR EMPLOYEE DATA SO WE CAN REALLY SEE HOW MANY WOMEN THEY EMPLOYEE AND IN WHAT POSITIONS!!! We all know that when it comes to the financial and banking sectors these companies are down right awful with few women as executives and top mangers. Come on REGENDER ask your corporate circle to reveal its women workforce data.

The so called NEW mission statement makes no sense with the corporate donors supporting Regender.

Re:Gender works to end gender inequity and discrimination against girls and women by exposing root causes and advancing research-informed action. Working with multiple sectors and disciplines, we are shaping a world that demands fairness across difference. Really?

Regender cites meaningless statistics like the 77 cents pay gap for "women" but that is a meaningless figure because there is no average or typical woman in America. It varies by occupation, by race, class, zip code, ethnic group, rural or urban living setting, marital situation... A black woman who is 30 years old living in NYC is not in the same boat as a urban white 30 year old woman in NYC with the same education level. The women's wage gap is closer to 45% for Hispanic women in the central and southern states.

Forget about the pay gap, now the wealth gap between minority women is extreme according to new analysis of the recent census data. The wealth gap between minority women and white women in the U.S. is the largest in the last thirty years with the median wealth gap for a minority woman is just $100 in assets while white women have $100,000 in assets. So lean in to that! I doubt the women working at Regender with their $100,000 + salaries understand or can relate to that horrific reality.

Guess what Regender the ROOT CAUSES of inequity and discrimination against girls and women can probably be found in many of the corporations in YOUR own Corporate circle. In an article on April 24, 2014 in the NYT's entitled "For Women in Tech, Pay Gap is Unusually Small" Harvard labor economist Claudia Goldin found that women were payed almost the same as men in the tech field while the worst pay gap existed in the Financial industry with women making 65.7 cents for every dollar a man made. Financial and Banking were among the worst in women's pay gap. So for the women who work at Regender for root causes all you have to do is look at yourselves in the mirror. How are you shaping a world of fairness when you are collaborating with corporations who may be part of the problem.

228

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

Is anyone reading Re:Gender’s research? $346 is the number on NCRW’s (Re:Gender) 2012 990 (year 2011) Revenue Part VIII Publications Revenue 2a. No wonder why NCRW (Re:Gender) has no impact on guidestar. During the former CEO’s nearly 17 years at the helm of NCRW (Re:gender), it never succeeded in developing a real national member center base. No member centers in Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Montana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Hawaii, Florida and Connecticut. Not even in Puerto Rico.
Did these esteemed experts and highly placed figures running the show care if they really did not have much of a national organization? Most of the “member centers” were just colleges and Universities.
But the real question is if NCRW (Re:Gender) never managed to create a network of women member centers around the USA then does that not reveal the truly sorry sad state of Women’s Rights Organizations in 2014? What happened to the Women’s Movement that took off in the late 60’s? And is that the real reason NCRW suddenly dropped its name and rebranded? Or did the ex-CEO and the board feel that it was not worth bothering with member centers in the missing states? Is there any real difference in Re:Gender's mission and vision compared to it's earlier version – NCRW? Or is it just window dressing?

In the 60’s there were few non-profits representing women or women's issues, yet now there are over ten thousand non-profits with the word girl or women in their title. But has that helped the situation of women in the US or around the world, in reality? The reality is that non-profits have been co-opted or we have witnessed the Gentrification of Advocacy, Philanthropy and Non-profits. Lea Pool’s Documentary “PINK RIBBONS, INC.” showed how corporations have managed to co-opt breast cancer and breast cancer research and exploit it for their own benefit with little of the money actually going towards research - not to mention little progress.

Is the same true for NCRW (Re:Gender)? Now that it eliminated its membership centers, it is left with its “corporate circle” and “President’s circle”. What does that mean? Are corporate interests the same as women’s interests? Do corporations really want to have a national mandated maternal paid leave act passed in the US? Not likely. Do Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs, BlackRock and Morgan Stanley really support women’s advancement in their actual corporate offices? Read Marie Myung-Koo Lee's The Atlantic article on "What it Was Like Working at Goldman Sachs". Now that membership is free at Re:gender and there are no membership dues, is Re:gender now so dependent on its corporate overseers that its mission has changed?

The reality is that corporations give money to non-profits, and for them it is great PR and a tax reduction strategy. The employees in these corporate-funded non-profits often have cushy well-paid jobs, with security and benefits. The corporations hire "women of color" to head their HR diversity departments, thereby deflecting any criticism, and the band plays on. People are told to join the nonprofits’ membership ranks, in effect diluting advocacy and real progress by usurping the actual grass roots advocacy that leads to real legislative changes. “Just sign up and we the experts will do the work for you. We give out awards, have conferences, meetings etc. just send in your donations and leave it up to us! Sit back and enjoy the show.”

Meanwhile, women are being shut out of executive and upper management and are leaving the corporate world. Monetizing, commodification, capitalizing, gentrification of women's issues. No wonder why there has really been no progress since the early 70’s.

Is Re:Gender being truthful to its base about its "rebranding"? Transparency and accountability are crucial. Who is running the show at Re:gender? The corporate dominated Board and Corporate Circle? Consultants? I give it a one star because it has an attractive website design and feel. I guess substance is not everything these days…

Review from Guidestar

8

Professional with expertise in this field

Rating: 5

I have been involved with NCRW for many years as a participant in their programs, partner, volunteer and advisor and have been continually impressed by the quality of their work and the high standards of their team. I am particularly inspired by their new President and the energy and expertise she is bringing to the leadership of the organization. My deepest involvement has been with their leadership development program for emerging women leaders in the nonprofit sector. I have been tremendously impressed by the caliber and diversity of the young women they have attracted to this program, and I believe that the curriculum of the program is thoughtfully designed and highly effective in supporting these women in advancing their leadership.

2

Professional with expertise in this field

Rating: 5

I volunteered my coaching and leadership development expertise to support NCRW's women's leadership fellowship program, so what I know about the organization comes from that experience and perspective. The staff are a joy to work with, providing clear and timely information about expectations and goals, while still being incredibly open and collaborative. The leadership fellows as a class were extraordinarily committed and cool. There are not enough programs offering leadership development for women in the middle stages of their careers, and this one is well executed and sorely needed. Aine is a new leader for the organization, and so far I've been very impressed with her presence and guidance. Overall, can't say enough good things about the staff and their good work in the world.

1

Donor

Rating: 5

NCRW came under my radar because I have a daughter, and was interested in research about how girls learn, education specifically related to girls, etc. NCRW was very helpful in finding documented research. I decided to donate to this organization; they thanked me by sending me related literature about girls! It was very thoughtful. NCRW is aligned with other like-minded organizations which I appreciate as well.

272

General Member of the Public

Rating: 1

The NCRW.org is an 501(c)3 that really is a JOBS program for the mostly white women who are affiliated &"work" there. Lots of work from home. Just look at the Directors, Trustees, President (current & past), and key employees. And some are missing or mystery employees! According to their 2012 990 SECTION VII A NCRW claims to have 3 people making over $100,000 yet it only lists Linda Basch with a total for of at $228,000. Who are the other two employees making over $100,000? The total compensation is $501,626 so that means that two other mystery employees got $273,626!

NCRW claims to be a national organization yet in 21 states in the USA it has NO membership centers at all. And in 21 states they have only one or two "centers". They used to have a map on their website that clearly shows the reality but recently they removed it. Most of the membership centers are clustered around the east coast (NYC,DC & MASS). It claims to have more than 120 member centers yet there are only 82 listed on their website. It claims to be an advocacy group for women and seeks to improve the lives of women and girls in the USA and around the world by being a clearinghouse for information. No member centers outside the U.S. but they did manage to spend $5,000 on their "international programs". So it is NOT really the national organization as it claims and the majority of the membership centers are just colleges and Universities with women study programs.

If you count compensation to employees, benefits it amounts to nearly $1,000,000 -not bad for just 9 employees! Add pay to consultants at $219,000. Add $103,000 for "Professional Expenses and "Other Expenses" and you almost reach the $1,335,000 Total Revenue. And one wonders what their impact is really besides taking care of the women that work there. No impact according to the statement on guidestar. Based on their 2012 990 they had an "Awards Dinner" and they came out with ZERO income! They had $217,177 Gross income but spent $217,177 on expenses like "Food & Beverages", "Entertainment" and "Other Expenses". Sounds Fishy to me. Lots of award dinners, fundraising, conferences, meetings and reports. Information without action is a waste. Information + Action = CHANGE. And since the early 70's there has been no real gains in the women's rights movement. NCRW.ORG is NOT a 501(c)4 it is a 501(c)3 so it cannot lobby for legal changes. Just look at their 990 2011.

In reality the NCRW mission is obsolete in 2013 since in the U.S.A. All women are NOT equal and women of color are suffering the most and are most under represented. Actually white women with advanced degrees make almost as much as their white male counter parts with the same education and occupy many of the positions in the executive women workforce. Yet the biggest disparity and pain is felt by women of color who are losing ground and not getting hired or advancing in their professions. What is worse 96% of NCRW's money came from public support and much of that is from companies that give to the nonprofit and also have had lawsuits brought against them by women. NCRW says that they collaborate with corporations and they really do. Exactly how much corporations give to NCRW.ORG is not revealed in their 990's. But does that help women?

In 2012 NCRW spent $1,000,000 on their projects and programs which are just forums, meetings conferences and reports which essentially means that leaders "talk amongst themselves"and it provides an opportunity for mostly white women to get together and have a talkfest. Networking is the biggest plus in these gatherings. How they spend the 1 million on these initiatives is not clear from the 2012 990. NCRW does not place their 990's on NCRW.ORG. NO IMPACT except as resume building for volunteers and interns who think it will impact their chances of getting a job.

Corporations give to nonprofits who "advocate for women" so they look good, and get a tax break, hire a woman who is a minority as it's "Head of Diversity" HR department and use her as a figure puppet to deflect any questions regarding the corporation's dedication to hiring a diverse workforce. It is PR at it's worst and NCRW plays along. Does Bloomberg and Goldman Sachs improve their image by giving to NCRW? Do these corporations really hire Black and Hispanic women for executive positions and for equal advancement? Let's face it corporations are not in the business of "hiring women" but are in business to increase share prices, increase market share, make the quarter, and satisfy shareholders return.

Review from Guidestar

1

Advisor

Rating: 5

Men generally know very little about the risks that women face because of their reproductive roles. The results of your superb IMAGES survey will help me -- through my daily work on Maternal-Neonatal-Child Health -- to reach out to men and adolescent boys at many levels to help them Know the Truth about the special needs and risks that women endure, especially the millions of illiterate women and unschooled girls who live in developing countries.

Review from JustGive