United Way Clinch-powell Valley Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
626041371
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Oak Ridge, TN, USA
Phone
8654838431
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,205,869
Expenses
$630,982
Assets
$3,592,589
Liabilities
$25,884

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MEGAN HOUCHIN (PRESIDENT)
  • STEVE VENTURA (VICE PRESIDENT/SECRETARY)
  • TRACY BOATNER (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • ADA HERNANDEZ-BELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ADA HERNANDEZ-BELL (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $70,889 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 unite the community and mobilize resources so that every child, individual, and family can thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

United way's largest program service is distributing funds to vetted community partner agencies that address the region's most critical health, education, and financial stability needs. Through a rigorous community investment and evaluation process, united way ensures donor contributions are directed to high-impact organizations. It continuously assesses community needs, convenes cross-sector leaders to develop collaborative strategies, and provides data-driven insights on the alice (asset limited, income constrained, employed) population to inform decision-making and advocacy. Additionally, united way strengthens the nonprofit sector by connecting volunteers with community partners to build organizational capacity and by facilitating meaningful corporate social responsibility and employee engagement opportunities that expand community impact beyond financial contributions.

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 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 84
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 11%; rating input score 11
  • Program expense ratio: 72.3%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $50.77 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 82.7%; rating input score 83; 28th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 85%; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.69; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 11% of revenue deployed · 72.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $456K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $71K · 20 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 11/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.