United Way of Bergen County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
226028959
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Paramus, NJ, USA
Phone
2012914050
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$13,776,032
Expenses
$13,861,622
Assets
$31,890,555
Liabilities
$7,828,585

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS TORONTO (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS TORONTO (PRESIDENT & CEO): $217,860 total reported compensation
  • CAROL LOWDEN (CONTROLLER): $135,036 total reported compensation
  • GINA NICOLETTI-GILSENAN (CHIEF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER): $124,415 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of bergen county's united way is to connect community members in need with resources through nj211, to stabilize families on the verge of losing their housing through the compassion fund and to develop affordable housing for seniors, veterans, families and adults with developmental disabilities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Affordable housing bergen county's united way works to address the affordable housing crisis in northern and central New Jersey by building safe and affordable housing for seniors, veterans, working families and adults with disabilities (i.e., down syndrome, autism, and multiple sclerosis). The organization manages all aspects of development from site acquisition and financing to construction and service coordination. Bergen county's united way has built 47 affordable housing projects these projects serve over 1,100 seniors, families and adults with developmental disabilities each day. Another 8 developments are under construction.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 93.4%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.02 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 56%; rating input score 56; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.6%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.3; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.25; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94% of revenue deployed · 93.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $12.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 14 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $821K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 37 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 380 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 377 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.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.