United Way of Nodaway County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510195791
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Maryville, MO, USA
Phone
6605620516
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$60,504
Expenses
$66,369
Assets
$315,559
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Megan Johnson (President)
  • Henry Copple (Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Tiffany Whipple (Secretary/Treasurer): $12,000 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Fundraising activities for the following not-for-profit organizations in Nodaway County, Missouri: Nodaway County School Nurses, Nodaway County 4-H Council, Nodaway County Community Building, Nodaway County Senior Center, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Nodaway County, The Ministry Center, Community Services Inc., Health Emergency Lifeline Program, and Habitat for Humanity of Nodaway County.

What it reported doing in 2025

United Way of Nodaway County has only one program or campaign each year. During the 2024 Campaign, United Way of Nodaway County's goal was to raise $47,950 for the following not-for-profit organizations: Nodaway County School Nurses, Nodaway County 4-H Council, Nodaway County Community Building, Nodaway County Senior Center, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Nodaway County, The Ministry Center, Community Services Inc., Health Emergency Lifeline Program and Habitat for Humanity of Nodaway County, Lettuce Dream.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 44
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 78.8%; rating input score 79
  • 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 10%; rating input score 10; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -9.7%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.75; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.1%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.9% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 78.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $52K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 10/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.