American Medical Womens Associationinc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
136163539
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8475177225
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,606,831
Expenses
$1,395,865
Assets
$4,365,095
Liabilities
$254,422

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Susan Hingle (President)
  • Eileen Barrett (President-Elect)
  • Beth Garner (PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • Theresa Rohr-Kirchgraber (PAST-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dr Eliza Chin (Executive Dir.): $202,188 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the organization is to advance women physicians and improve the health of women. The values of the organization are advocacy, advancement, belonging, diversity, equity, healing, leadership.

What it reported doing in 2024

Student Affairs - The Association has student branches across the nation, which provide a variety programs such as student academic awards, need-based awards, student travel scholarships, chapter and regional event scholarships, and student newsletters for medical and undergraduate students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 83% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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 available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.9%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 62.3%; rating input score 62; 31st 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 13.1%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.13; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.9% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $962K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $148K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.