Women's Industry Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205927456
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Phone
8173585236
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$401,365
Expenses
$528,359
Assets
$322,696
Liabilities
$75,885

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ELIZABETH LIZ STEIN (CHAIR)
  • LAURA KOTTSCHADE RAIMANN (VICE CHAIR)
  • JANETTE TOOLEY (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. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Women's industry network (win) is a not-for-profit association dedicated to encouraging, developing, and cultivating opportunities to attract women to collision repair while recognizing excellence, promoting leadership, and fostering a network among the women who are shaping the industry.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization hosts a most influential women (miw) award to recognize women who have enriched the collision repair industry with their leadership, vision, and commitment to excellence. The program's charter aligns with win's mission to "enhance the role of women in the industryhas recognized more than 93 women for their professional accomplishments and for going beyond requirements of their positions to give back to their communities. The most influential women program has supported the industry by funding scholarships for prospective female students interested in pursuing a career in collision repair. Honorees have held positions in every facet of the collision repair industry, as shop owners, body and paint technicians, managers, wholesalers, lobbyists, suppliers, insurance adjusters, consultants, educators, editors and writers, and industry association directors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -31.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticIndividuals column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.