National Women Veterans United

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421678939
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Women's Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$188,595
Expenses
$132,746
Assets
$224,077

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Rochelle Crump (Executive Director)
  • Nancy Clark (President)
  • Theresa Criss-Amos (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Rochelle Crump (Executive Director)
  • Sharon Stokes-Parry (Board Chair)
  • Jeannie Adams (Treasurer)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

National Women Veterans United has been essential in ensuring women veterans receive the support recognition and resources they deserve. Our One Voice. One Vision. commitment has always been clear: to uplift empower and advocate for the women who have served and those who continue to serve our nation with honor. With your support we can stand together to reach even more women across the United States who have worn the uniform and those still answering the call today.

What it reported doing in 2025

Stand Down - Women Veterans Stand Down - provide hygiene kits and food to women veterans. Workshops to inform of hospice care veterans benefits burials and services that are available to them. Community vendors with information from the Federal State and County organizations. Number served: 110

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 12
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.6%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 13.6%; rating input score 14

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 29.6%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.69; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.6% of revenue deployed · 13.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 14/100.