United Way of Central Minnesota
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 410915124
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- St Cloud, MN, USA
- Phone
- 3202520227
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,477,826
- Expenses
- $5,049,493
- Assets
- $3,374,672
- Liabilities
- $1,684,393
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHEN JONES (PRESIDENT & CEO)
- TRICIA BIGAOUETTE (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE)
Highest reported compensation
- STEPHEN JONES (PRESIDENT & CEO): $139,179 total reported compensation
- TRICIA BIGAOUETTE (VICE PRESIDENT OF FINANCE): $109,055 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 improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of central Minnesota. Because change doesn't happen alone.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization has chosen to focus and accelerate community wide solutions in three main community impact areas: health, education, and financial stability. Within each of these impact areas, there are primary goals. Health addresses mental health and addiction. Education addresses kindergarten readiness, student success, and career and college readiness. Financial stability addresses housing and child care. United way of central Minnesota also provides the community safety net, ensuring access to food and emergency shelter with each year's first dollars raised. Safety net programs are evaluated and selected by a team of experienced volunteers familiar with the agencies and community needs. Program investments in the three impact areas are reviewed by teams of community volunteers after a letter of intent and full request for proposal are accepted by the organization. The investment team of community volunteers reviews the applications and makes funding recommendations to the board of directors.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 88
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 21
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 90.4%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $6.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 23; 23rd 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: 91.9%; rating input score 92; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -12.8%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 90.4% of revenue deployed · 79.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $139K · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 38 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 36 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 23/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.