Women Winning

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
411954610
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
St Paul, MN, USA
Phone
6512510690
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Government and Public Administration

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$428,587
Expenses
$538,392
Assets
$197,881
Liabilities
$50,900

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • NEVADA LITTLEWOLF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NEVADA LITTLEWOLF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $160,542 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To encourage, promote, support, and elect pro-choice women of all political parties to all levels of public office in Minnesota.

What it reported doing in 2024

Campaign logistics and structures, communications, fundraising, caucus and convention, field and direct voter contact. In the 2024 election cycle, over 170 women contacted women winning about running for office. Women winning endorsed 90 pro-choice candidates in 2024. Women winning continues to recruit and meet with dozens of pro-choice women to run for office across the state. In 2024, womenwinning met with 150 pro-choice women candidates and their supporters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.8%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 50.3%; rating input score 50
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.8 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: -25.6%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.37; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 29.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.8% of revenue deployed · 50.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $271K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 14 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.