The United Way of Southwest Missouri

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440556865
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Joplin, MO, USA
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$912,066
Expenses
$890,685
Assets
$1,927,799
Liabilities
$243,586

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANNE CURCHIN (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID HOGARD (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • SCOTT VORHEES (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DUANE DREILING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • NORA CANNON (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DALE BRENDAL (BOARD MEMBER)
  • DAVID PENDERGRAFT (BOARD MEMBER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization provides allocations to other community agencies to serve the community and its citizens, and offers various support to parents and children in the community.

What it reported doing in 2020

Through the building bridges program, the organization partners with a coalition of of community members and organizations to help families on their journey out of poverty. When families and individuals sign up for the program, they begin their journey by participating in a 20 week intensive educational course. These classes help participants develop an action plan with realistic and obtainable personal goas that serve as a roadmap from poverty to financial stability. At the end of the course, participants attend a graduation celebration recognizing that they have taken the first step toward improving their lives. Coordinating with one joplin, activities are carried out to encourage coalition building in the joplin community, using consensus and inclusivity to build the capacity of the community, and advocating with local policy makers to encourage healthier communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.6%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.99 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 2.3%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.16; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.5% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.6% of revenue deployed · 69.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $622K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2020
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 17 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.