United Way of Dunn County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
396099810
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Menomonie, WI, USA
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,830
Expenses
$107,585
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LUISA GERASIMO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TIM BARTELS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • KARL ANDERSON (DIRECTOR)
  • SHANDA HENNING (DIRECTOR)
  • SHELLEE PECHMILLER (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Improve lives by mobilizing the caring power of the community. These are the building blocks for a good life and a quality education that leads to a stable job, and enough income to support a family through retirement, and good health.

What it reported doing in 2023

United way of dunn countys primary focus continues with the lens to rebuild for the better, more equitable and more resilient communities. We dont want to get back to normal. Normal was not working for many people, and old and broken systems wont fix those challenges. We are reimagining collaboration between the private, public and non-profit sectors, to effectively drive real change in communities that equips them to better weather ievatable future crisis.during the year the decision was made that in order to best fulfil this commitment most efficiently united way of dunn county would cease opperations and allow united way st. Cloud & red cedar valley to expand their operation and territory served. Accordingly, all remaining assests were transfered in june 2024 to united way st. Cloud & red cedar valley who will utilize the funds to continue to work towards the overall commitment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -63.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.2% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.5% per year; rating input score 0; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $86K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.