United Way of Mid Rural New York, Inc.
Legal name: United Way of Delaware and Otsego Counti
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 160929038
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2022
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2022
- Location
- Norwich, NY, US
- Phone
- 607.334.8815
- Rating
- 63
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $228,470
- Expenses
- $128,796
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELIZABETH MONACO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ELIZABETH MONACO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $85,928 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To improve the quality of life for all residents of our four-County service area by focusing on income and financial stability, education and health.
What it reported doing in 2022
The united way of Delaware and otsego counties raises and allocates funds for local health and human service programs that address the needs of the poor and working poor. Funds raised are awarded to programs, not overall agencies, that focus on health, education and financial stability. This is done through a competitive application process. Applicants are asked to demonstrate that their 501(c)3 organization has sustainability, measurable outcomes, and fits into a specific impact area. The impact areas include children and families, aging population, poverty and self-sufficiency issues. Awards are made annually and are open to any 501(c)3 organization that fits the above described criteria.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, and 52% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 54
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 83
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 42.2%; rating input score 42
- Program expense ratio: 74.6%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $15.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 38.4%; rating input score 38; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st 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: Fail
- 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: 43.6%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 12.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 42.2% of revenue deployed · 74.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 20 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $96K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $86K · 21 people listed
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2022
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 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: Mission deployment rate scored 42/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 38/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 50/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 28/100.