United Way of Greater Barbour County Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
570897087
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Eufaula, AL, USA
Phone
3346872896
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$119,325
Expenses
$162,220
Assets
$121,634
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BOB POWERS (Past President)
  • CRAIG PACKARD (President)
  • KENT THOMAS (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • KENT THOMAS (Executive Director): $16,800 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Raising funds for various charities

What it reported doing in 2015

Disbursed funds to 14 charitable organizations in 2015. Schedule attached

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 81%; rating input score 81; 45th 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: Fail
    • 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: -35.9%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -16.4% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $162K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Document-retention policy not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.