Franklin Grand Isle United Way Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
030273929
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
St Albans, VT, USA
Phone
8025277418
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$391,683
Expenses
$501,034
Assets
$825,538
Liabilities
$42,856

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER CHAGNON (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TINA MUELLER (PRESIDENT)
  • SALLY BORTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAULA SHORT (RESOURCE MANAGER): $43,718 total reported compensation
  • SALLY BORTZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $7,931 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fgiuw connects people and resources to find solutions to our communities' most pressing needs. We collaborate with other community service organizations, partner with businesses, teach with service delivery agencies, and join forces with dedicated leaders and volunteers. Together, we solve community needs that affect families and children while assuring a viable community-wide, human services infrastructure. United way mobilizes the community to provide the financial and non-monetary resources needed to build a better community. Through a single community-wide fund drive, united way raises resources that are invested in programs that address this community's most pressing needs. We actively work with local agencies to implement innovative and effective programs. The outcome is a better community.

What it reported doing in 2015

Community grant funding and allocations to local organizations and non-profits. This is based on a 2 year funding cycle, whereby applications for potential funding are made every two years by organizations, and the amounts to be funded to each organization are reviewed and approved by the board of directors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 67% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 81
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.8%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 73%; rating input score 73; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -27.9%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.65; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.3%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -11.9% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 97.8% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $383K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 38 of 40 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 18 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Whistleblower policy not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.