International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health LTD

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
611421087
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Burnsville, MN, USA
Phone
9526831878
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Medical Disciplines Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,729,087
Expenses
$1,403,681
Assets
$3,064,257
Liabilities
$591,687

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Linda Vignozzi (President)
  • Sally MacPhedran (President-Elect)
  • Sue W Goldstein (Immediate Past President)
  • Tessa Benitez (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sarah Cigna (Education Chair): $10,050 total reported compensation
  • Sameena Rahmen (Scientific Program Chair): $4,850 total reported compensation
  • Juliana Kling (Clinical Guidelines Chair): $3,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To lead, innovate and promote our interdisciplinary field by bridging science, patient care and community

What it reported doing in 2025

ISSWSH launched its live and on-demand virtual course providing the information and tools used to educate, diagnose, and treat patients that are navigating complex female hormone physiology transitions that may lead tosexual dysfunction. The course involves a series of 7 (2-hour) virtual didactics covering the physiology of thehormones that drive the various transitions throughout the life course including puberty, pregnancy, genderaffirmation, perimenopause, menopause, androgens, and cancer.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 92
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 82.3%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 33.4%; rating input score 33; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 28th 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: 18.8%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.18; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 82.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $10K · 20 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $557K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.