United Way of Cowlitz & Wahkiakum Counties

Legal name: United Way of Cowlitz County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910609306
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kelso, WA, US
Phone
360-423-5320
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$379,579
Expenses
$470,466
Assets
$537,326
Liabilities
$60,006

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ADDY CLARK (PRESIDENT)
  • BRENT FREEMAN (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • LISA FARVOUR (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SABRINA KOCHPRAPHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANGELA HEINLEN (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SABRINA KOCHPRAPHA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $77,287 total reported compensation
  • ANGELA HEINLEN (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $56,122 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 local lives by mobilizing the caring power of the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

United way of cowlitz county (d/b/a united way of cowlitz and wahkiakum counties) mobilizes the caring power of the community to continuously improve the lives of every person in cowlitz & wahkiakum counties. The organization works to create lasting changes in the areas of youth opportunity, financial security, healthy communities and community resiliency by funding programs, providing direct services, and convening community partners to address local needs.united way also stands ready to respond when emergency needs arise, coordinating efforts and mobilizing resources to support the community during times of crisis.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 74% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 78.6%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 69.8%; rating input score 70; 46th 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.9%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 28.4%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -8% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 8 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 97.6% of revenue deployed · 78.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $370K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings 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: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • 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.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.