The United Way of Greater Waterbury Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
060646634
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Waterbury, CT, USA
Phone
2037579855
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,574,592
Expenses
$4,507,101
Assets
$9,786,858
Liabilities
$2,990,304

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTEN JACOBY (PRESIDENT/CHIEF PROFESSIONAL OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTEN JACOBY (PRESIDENT/CHIEF PROFESSIONAL OFFICER): $204,056 total reported compensation
  • JERED BRUZAS (CHIEF IMPACT OFFICER): $133,658 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 united way works collaboratively with and strategically invests in community partners to help solve community problems. The united way provides leadership, convenes and facilities community conversations and initiatives on priority issues. The united way provides staff leadership and serves as fiduciary for several partnerships including the greater waterbury campership program which enables children from low-income families to attend summer camp and bridge to success, a cradle to career initiative. The united way also takes a lead role in food insecurity initiatives such as holiday assistance program and stock the pantry.

What it reported doing in 2024

Allocations and funded agency relations - the united way allocates/invests funds in local health and human service programs and initiatives that help people in need. Through the outcome measurement initiative the united way assists its funded programs in developing and implementing a system to measure the impact of their services on their clients. Using the outcome measurement data, the united way communicates the value of these services more effectively, while providing individual programs with a tool to improve their committee which works to address include dozens of local non-profit agencies and collaboratives such as the food resource committee which works to address local hunger issues, bridge to success whose focus is on positive youth development, and the continuum of care/can who are working to end chronic homelessness.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 75% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 66.1%; rating input score 66
  • Program expense ratio: 78.9%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 68.1%; rating input score 68; 18th 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: 19.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.17; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 66.1% of revenue deployed · 78.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $204K · 22 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 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: 79 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 77 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.
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • 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 39/100.