Great Rivers United Way Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
390848188
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Onalaska, WI, USA
Phone
6087961400
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,865,577
Expenses
$2,983,918
Assets
$3,068,109
Liabilities
$742,169

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY KAY WOLF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY KAY WOLF (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $131,624 total reported compensation
  • AMY HACKBARTH (FINANCE DIRECTOR): $91,300 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to unite people and resources to improve lives and strengthen our communities. Our vision is that all individuals and families in our communities will achieve their full potential through education, income stability and healthy lives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Community problem solving - community problem solving efforts include, but not limited to, united way staff involvement and resources for la crosse county family policy board, coulee collaborative to end homelessness, rebuilding for learning community retreat, la crosse mental health coalition, monroe county mental health coalition, , resilience trauma informed care framework, 2-1-1 advisory committee, healthy families advisory committee, w-2 steering committee, community youth supports, coulee region volunteer coordinators, and disaster preparedness and recovery efforts. Our work in community problem solving is data-driven and informed by studying community needs in partnership with local health departments and hospitals. We publish compass now, a community needs assessment every three years. View the 2024 report at compassnow.org. This effort helps identify health and human service critical issues and what community assets can be leveraged in finding solutions for a six county area (houston (mn), buffalo, la crosse, monroe, trempealeau, and vernon (wi)). The compass report provides valuable information and presents the results of data collected through a community survey, focus groups, an extensive review of socio-economic indicators, and an inventory of community assets. The purpose of the compass report is to serve as a reference tool and foundation for action plans that solve problems long term.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 72% for direct work, 28% for grants, and 1% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.2%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.2%; rating input score 97; 38th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.1%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.03; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.2% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $132K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 25 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 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.