Arizona Women's Board

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271895934
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
4809512950
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Kidney Disease

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$657,551
Expenses
$655,490
Assets
$36,513
Liabilities
$684

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

40 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN DORIA (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN PURTILL (CO-PRESIDENT)
  • STEPHANIE KERKORIAN (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBYN LEE DEPENDAHL (ADMIN CONSULTANT/DIRECTOR): $40,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Arizona women's board is committed to the prevention of kidney disease through awareness, education and research to improve the quality of life for arizonans with kidney disease.

What it reported doing in 2025

Through the money raised at the authors luncheon we are able to provide for patient services ranging from transportation to and from dialysis, kidney transplants, medications, dental care, daily living expenses for those in need throughout Arizona, including over 100 children on dialysis and their families at phoenix children's hospital. Our funding is also helping scientists at t-gen research the feasibility of a simple urine test to determine the fate of a person with chronic kidney disease (i.e. Whether they will eventually need dialysis or transplant - all of which can be prevented if caught early enough).

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 81
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 91.5%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97.5%; rating input score 98; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.9% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 91.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 39 of 40 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $600K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 40 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 filed related-organization links
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 48/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.