United Way of Greater Kansas City

What it reported doing in 2024

United way plays an important human service ecoystem role by addressing the economic effects of poverty and racial & ethnic disparities through the administration of direct financial assistance through a range of collaborative interventions. Summarized below are key examples of this work in the Kansas city region. Eviction prevention fund - united way of greater Kansas city serves as partner to various city and county governments throughout the Kansas city metropolitan region in the deployment of financial assistance, paired with legal defense provided by nonprofit legal service providers, aimed at preventing eviction. Over the past three years, this work has involved the braiding of federal covid relief funds, philanthropic funds, and state grants. In 2024, more than 1,561 households avoided eviction through this initiative. Utility assistance fund - united way has a longstatnding partnership with the board of public utilies in Kansas city, Kansas, through which thousands of low-income households receive financial assistance aimed at preventing the loss of utility service-a key risk factor in homelessness. Direct assistance to low-income households - united way awarded $772,961 in support to 824 households through a program that distributes prepaid debit cards to families struggling with the impacts of poverty and high inflation. Family empowerment initiative - through this initiative, united way of greater Kansas city and the siemer institute for family stability with the support of six partner community agencies is serving 478 families struggling with housing instability. With targeted case management and direct client assistance, familes are able to resolve financial and housing stability issues that might otherwise push them to the brink of houselessness.

Financial Efficiency

• Mission deployment rate: 87.1%; rating input score 87
• Program expense ratio: 80.1%; rating input score 80
• Fundraising efficiency: $6.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

• Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
• Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
  • Compensation committee: Pass
  • Independent consultant: Pass
  • 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: 88.3%; rating input score 88; 19th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
• Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
  • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
  • Whistleblower policy: Pass
  • Document-retention policy: Pass
  • CEO compensation review process: Pass
  • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
  • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
  • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
  • Audit committee oversight: Pass
  • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

• Operating margin: -7.1%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
• Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.3; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
• Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
• Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

• Program expense growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
• Revenue growth: -1.1% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
• Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings