Orrville United Way Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
341017865
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Orrville, OH, USA
Phone
3306838181
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$777,788
Expenses
$695,233
Assets
$634,970
Liabilities
$31,264

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANN MCPEEK (PRESIDENT)
  • WALTER SAMSON (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN TUCKER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JAMES CARPENTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • DAWN CAZZOLLI (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMES CARPENTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $43,905 total reported compensation
  • DAWN CAZZOLLI (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $23,616 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The orrville united way improves lives by unitiing people and resources to advance the common good in orrville, dalton and marshallville in eastern wayne county Ohio. Our goal is to create long-lasting changes that prevent future problems in the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Helping in hard time: emergency assistance providing for basic needs of families living at or under 150-200% of the federal poverty level, including food and non-food essentials , help with utilities, prescriptions, and transportation. Reassurance to senior citiizens and assistance with payments for medication. Seasonal assistance program provides school supplies, holiday food baskets, gifts and household essentials to alleviate financial strain on families during these periods. Armed forces emergency services, emergency disaster relief, emergency shelter for victims of domestic violence, legal assistance for low-income and senior citizens, free meals and healthy options for low-income groups with scholarships ot the y.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 79%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $20.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.6%; rating input score 93; 40th 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: 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 10.6%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.91; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.7%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71% of revenue deployed · 79% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $549K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $44K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • 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 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.