United Way of Athens-limestone County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510187947
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Athens, AL, USA
Phone
2562332323
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$328,677
Expenses
$351,226
Assets
$197,652
Liabilities
$16,862

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DANA HENRY (2ND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DENVER BETTS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KIMBERLY BELL (PRESIDENT)
  • KAYE MCFARLEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KAYE MCFARLEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $46,305 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To strenghten and implement the spirit of human helpfulness in the city of athens and limestone county, Alabama, to create a fund to be annually collected cooperativley by voluntary contributions, and to study the health, welfare, and human services of limestone county and by cooperative effort meet those needs through the development of a constructive program.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization's main program service accomplishment is the collection of funds to meet the health and welfare needs of the city of athens and limestone county, Alabama. The united way of athens-limestone county offers local businesses and industries the opportunity to work with our area agencies for team building experiences. Each activity is customized to meet the objectives of the business, as well as provide help to our agencies and those they serve.

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 42% for direct work, and 58% for 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 74.6%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 69.6%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.03 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98%; rating input score 98; 58th 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: 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: Fail
    • 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: -6.9%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.56; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 74.6% of revenue deployed · 69.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $245K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 15 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 15 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 22/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.