UU Justice NC

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
822653685
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Durham, NC, United States
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alliance/Advocacy
Affiliation
Religious (unspecified)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$317,311
Expenses
$208,856
Assets
$210,142
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Patty Hanneman (President)

People named in this filing

  • Patty Hanneman (President)
  • Gaye Williams Morris (Treasurer and Secretary)
  • Claudia Jimenez (officer)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Unitarian Universalist Justice Ministry of North Carolina joyfully organizes UUs to co-create a transformative movement for justice through spiritual grounding, collaboration, and imagination. We live into this mission by: Deepening relationships among UU congregations and individuals in NC to both cultivate a network of support and harness our power as 5,000+ UUs in the state. Working in close relationship with justice partners in NC who are aligned with our UU values and doing transformative work in our state. In the fall of 2012, Doug Rhodes created the UU Legislative Ministry of North Carolina. It was a social justice network that connected UUs in the state for five years. Then in 2017, under the leadership of Rev. John Saxon, our state Legislative Ministry was relaunched as the UU Justice Ministry of North Carolina, with the Common name - UU Forward Together. Through a grant...

What it reported doing in 2024

Trained over 50 Unitarian Universalists in de-escalation first aid and situational awareness.

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 filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 31
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 24.4%; rating input score 24
  • Program expense ratio: 37%; rating input score 37
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.78 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 72.7%; rating input score 73; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 57.4%; rating input score 57; 44th 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: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 34.2%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 41.7% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 24.4% of revenue deployed · 37% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $77K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 37 of 40 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 57/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX GrantsToDomesticOrgs column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.