United Way of Greater Cleveland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
346516654
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Cleveland, OH, USA
Phone
2164362100
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$17,682,545
Expenses
$16,315,387
Assets
$41,256,826
Liabilities
$18,259,794

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

Leadership & pay

81 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON SOBOL JORDAN (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHARON SOBOL JORDAN (PRESIDENT & CEO): $487,532 total reported compensation
  • KENNETH SURRATT (CHIEF COMMUNITY INVESTMENT & RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT): $217,859 total reported compensation
  • KRISTIN POPELMAYER (CHIEF BRAND MARKETING & COMMUNICATIONS): $181,861 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

United way of greater cleveland ("uwgc or the organization") is a not-for-profit corporation located in cleveland, Ohio. Uwgc serves as an essential community connector, generating and coordinating resources across individual donors, corporations, service providers and government and civic leaders to improve lives and create community impact at scale.

What it reported doing in 2024

Information & referral - united way serves as the gateway to social services in the community through their 2-1-1 service. United way 2-1-1 connects individuals and families to social services 24 hours a day, every day of the year providing information and service navigation to help people find and understand their options to access community resources. 226,000 clients were connected with experts who help to secure food, housing and utility assistance, reduce prescription costs, support veterans, and more.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 80% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 73% for direct work, and 27% 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 99
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 54.5%; rating input score 55
  • Program expense ratio: 56.7%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.12 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 89.3%; rating input score 89; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 98.4%; rating input score 98; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.7%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.53; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -6.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 54.5% of revenue deployed · 56.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 60 of 61 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $9.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $488K · 81 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $811K reported
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 55/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.