United Way of Dane County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 390817532
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Madison, WI, USA
- Phone
- 6082464350
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Standard
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $20,731,016
- Expenses
- $22,058,486
- Assets
- $21,898,523
- Liabilities
- $4,350,504
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
39 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Renee Moe (President/CEO)
- Jody Bartnick (Vice President Community Impact)
- Nicholas Wood (CFO/Vice President Administration)
- Karen Burch (Vice President of Community Engagement/Marketing)
- Justin Hardy (Vice President Resource Development)
Highest reported compensation
- Renee Moe (President/CEO): $337,091 total reported compensation
- Jody Bartnick (Vice President Community Impact): $173,153 total reported compensation
- Nicholas Wood (CFO/Vice President Administration): $172,678 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Unite the community to achieve measurable results that change lives.
What it reported doing in 2024
Youth Opportunity: Helping Young People Realize Their Full Potential. Every young person deserves the opportunity to thrive. At United Way, we help children get off to a good start and empower youth to reach their full potential by breaking down barriers to success. We advance early childhood education, literacy development, access to a high-quality K-12 education, college and career readiness and family engagement - fostering a future where every young person can realize their dreams. Children who start kindergarten-ready and finish high school are more likely to have the skills required to be successful in post-secondary education, an increasingly complicated job market and society. Adults with higher education levels are more likely to gain employment with family-sustaining wages. Strategies: Childcare and Early Childhood Development 1. Increase access to high quality, culturally relevant early care and education experiences particularly for Black, Indigenous and Families of Color experiencing poverty. 2. Build caregivers (parents and early care and education teachers) understanding of healthy child development through family and community outreach (outside of childcare, i.e. home visiting). 3. Connections to community resources and programs: remove barriers to accessing family support services that allow families to access the resources and services they need to overcome the experience of poverty (collective impact). 4. Support/influence policy changes that will deepen early learning and development outcomes for children. Strategies: In School, After School and Summer Learning, Literacy Development, Family Engagement and College and Career Readiness (K-12) 1. Facilitate access to additional learning opportunities to enhance students' mastery of academic content. 2. Build students' social/emotional and non-cognitive skills. 3. Ensure students' behavioral health and wellness. 4. Foster connection, belonging, leadership and academic success with youth at risk of disconnecting. 5. Recognize family engagement as a key component to improve student successes and outcomes. Goals: Build family well-being by intentionally and simultaneously working with children under five and the adults in their lives together. All students succeed academically, and graduate high school prepared for higher education, career and community. Results: * 7,919 Dane County neighbors supported through Youth Opportunity programming * 196 Families reported improved parent-child interaction or increased knowledge about parenting * 1,379 elementary and middle school students improved social emotional skills * 427 high school students improved connection, belonging, leadership and/or academic success
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 68% 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 80
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88.1%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.13 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 91%; rating input score 91; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: -6.4%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.99; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88.1% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 34 of 34 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $18.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $337K · 39 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 46 of 47 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 137 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 133 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 14/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.