United Way of Lincoln and Lancaster County Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201412874
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lincoln, NE, USA
- Phone
- 4024417700
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $379,956
- Expenses
- $112,655
- Assets
- $4,295,820
- Liabilities
- $20,827
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEOFF CLINE (VICE PRESIDENT - 2023, PRE)
- KEVIN WAILES (PRESIDENT - 2025)
- BRAD CRAIN (VICE PRESIDENT - 2025)
- MEAGAN LIESVELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MEAGAN LIESVELD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $172,566 total reported compensation
- MARY ALDRICH-KNIGHT (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $109,432 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The united way of lincoln and lancaster county foundation, inc. Is a public charity created to help fulfill the mission of the united way of lincoln and lancaster county.
What it reported doing in 2024
Nine agencies received donor designated funding in support of their general program activities. See detailed list of programs on schedule o.donor designations were distributed to the following agencies: hilsabeck distributions: hooker county community foundation - $7,000nebraska wesleyan university - $1,000united way of lincoln and lancaster county - $6,250robinson rutz/mullin distributions: als in the heartland : $1,000 alzheimer's association Nebraska chapter $250 american heart association $500 cedars home for children foundation $250 food bank of lincoln $3,000 lighthouse $3,000 united way of lincoln and lancaster county $17,000
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
MIXED - 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: 23
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 82
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 19.6%; rating input score 20
- Program expense ratio: 34.8%; rating input score 35
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 59.2%; rating input score 59; 44th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 70.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 38.13; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 23.6%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 13.8% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 24.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 19.6% of revenue deployed · 34.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $39K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $173K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 20/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.