United Way of Central Missouri Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440595184
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736364100
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,270,124
Expenses
$2,920,344
Assets
$4,650,032
Liabilities
$1,794,670

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

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LEE KNERNSCHIELD (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LEE KNERNSCHIELD (PRESIDENT): $113,578 total reported compensation
  • ANN BAX (PAST PRESIDE): $10,696 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 people and resources in the mid-Missouri area by leading and coordinating a community effort to care for one another. 26 public charitable organizations and programs submit annual applications for funding from the united way of central Missouri (uwcemo).

What it reported doing in 2025

The united way of central Missouri (uwcemo) annual campaign funds two of the largest program services which includes twenty-six public charitable partner agencies and community support grants for the partner agencies or other charitable organizations that meet the required criteria for eligibility. The funds are used for one of the focus areas listed below. The board reviews the partner agency and the community support grant applicants purpose and needs and awards an allocation or grant based on campaign pledges. Uwcemo focuses on the following areas when making allocation and grant award decisions: a.education-helping children and youth achieve their potential through prevention and intervention programs. B. Income-promoting financial stability and independence through programs that support self-sufficiency. C.health-improving individuals health through agencies that provide services for medical, dental and mental health.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 81% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 51
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 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: 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: 10.7%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.59; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.3%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.8% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 91.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $114K · 28 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 43 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.