Rochester Womens Network Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133167590
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Webster, NY, USA
Phone
5857463066
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Womens' Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$40,534
Expenses
$33,832
Assets
$119,402
Liabilities
$16,731

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN JEFFERSON (President)
  • PREEYA GHOLKAR (Vice President)
  • JUI TRIVEDI (Vice President)
  • CHRISTINA DEGROFF (Vice President)
  • SARAH MARCHE (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN JEFFERSON (President)
  • PREEYA GHOLKAR (Vice President)
  • JORDAN FRITZ (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

To enhance the professional lives of our members by affording them opportunities to support, empower, and inspire each other through trusted business connections and authentic relationships.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Network provides free and fee-based programs, seminars and networking opportunities throughout the year in Rochester, NY and surrounding areas. Members are given the opportunity to meet other professionals and network, attend programs and a business conference, and elect local officers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.53; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -61.2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.