Umoja Village

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
854066068
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
Location
Aiken, SC, USA
Phone
8032260150
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy

Reported finances

Revenue
$126,881
Expenses
$325,726
Assets
$100,921
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Donna Moore Wesby (CEO Cofounder)

Highest reported compensation

  • Donna Moore Wesby (CEO Cofounder): $85,008 total reported compensation
  • Gloria Wesby (Chief Operations Officer): $26,392 total reported compensation
  • Cynthia Holland (Executive Assistant): $19,415 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To cultivate a more diverse equitable and inclusive environment within our communities by focusing on unity and connecting clients to needed resources for the betterment of the underserved underrepresented marginalized and those to whom the effects of prejudice or systemic bias have impacted.

What it reported doing in 2025

Umoja Village created an initiative as part of the Umoja Village Rebuilding The Foundation Crime Prevention Plan entitled Project Bounce Back. This initiative works with the adult second chance population. Any client who requests assistance from Umoja Village with housing assistance transportation services job creation initiatives etc. is required to establish a Life Action Plan. From there Umoja Village provides support services to address any barriers to help them move forward with life. Another adult second chance initiative supported by Umoja Village was the Heads In Beds initiative where we provided beds or other essential furniture to clients who found stable housing from previously being unhoused.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 82% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 15
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.5%; rating input score 96
  • Program expense ratio: 37.2%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 69.2%; rating input score 69; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -156.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 42%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 35% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -47.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -39.3% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.5% of revenue deployed · 37.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $121K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $85K · 17 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 41 current checks pass · 11 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.