Women Doing Well Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
842275141
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Nashville, TN, USA
Phone
8043063998
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,614,616
Expenses
$1,329,619
Assets
$642,845
Liabilities
$113,765

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JULIE WILSON (PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN OF THE)
  • EMILY MURRAY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MARY SHAW (VICE PRESIDENT, EXPERIENCE)

Highest reported compensation

  • JULIE WILSON (PRESIDENT, CHAIRMAN OF THE): $128,237 total reported compensation
  • MARY SHAW (VICE PRESIDENT, EXPERIENCE): $99,740 total reported compensation
  • EMILY MURRAY (VICE PRESIDENT): $57,099 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Women doing well exists to activate women towards greater purposeful generosity. This is accomplished by taking women through the women doing well pathway where they will learn their purpose, identify their passions, and create a plan to live generously with their time, talents, and financial resources.

What it reported doing in 2025

Women doing well provides consulting and training for missionally aligned non-profits to help them serve their women donors with excellence and grow their donor base. Wdw also facilitates their usage of the pathway and other wdw materials and experiences. These organizations agree to help cover costs of training and materials that wdw provides.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% 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

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: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.7%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 62.3%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.7%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.48; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.3% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.6% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.7% of revenue deployed · 62.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $829K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.
  • 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 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.