Undivided

Legal name: Undivided Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
851596122
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jun 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Cincinnati, OH, USA
Phone
(513) 278-8241
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Management & Technical Assistance
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,441,156
Expenses
$2,580,805
Assets
$3,124,183
Liabilities
$243,191

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLES MINGO (CEO (FORMER) CHAIR (CURREN)
  • TROY JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TROY JACKSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $184,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

UNDIVIDED ignites and unites for racial justice by creating Jesus-rooted spaces of belonging that equip people for multi-racial healing, solidarity, and justice.

What it reported doing in 2025

Organizingundivided invests in thepeople, relationships, and local leadershipthat make faithful public action possible.through the organizer developmentcohort, leaders received ongoing coaching, peer support, and practical training in thecraft of community organizing.organizers are leading campaigns in cincinnati, springfield, detroit, orlando, seattle, houston, and across Pennsylvania, partnering with interfaith communities, legal advocates, and local organizations to pursue lasting change.at the same time, the evangelical organizing project has grown this work into spaces wheresustained immigration organizing has beenlargely absent, equipping evangelical leaders to engage their communities with courage, wisdom, and hope.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 53% for direct work, and 47% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 62
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.7%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 74.2%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 25%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.1%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 24.2% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 31.5% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 55.7% of revenue deployed · 74.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 5 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 29 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • 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 44/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.