United Way of Northern Arizona Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860211666
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Flagstaff, AZ, USA
Phone
9287739813
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,211,464
Expenses
$2,136,179
Assets
$3,511,245
Liabilities
$1,129,175

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH ARCHULETA (PRESIDENTCEO): $142,966 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improving lives by mobilizing communities to create lasting changes in community conditions. We believe in the power and potential of successful, resilient youth to create thriving communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Uwna concentrates its efforts on the following community-inspired focus areas, essential to achieving positive social change and sustainable impact for our youth and community: early childhood development, positive youth development/youth opportunity, healthy communities, financial stability/meeting basic needs and crisis response. Through collaboration with partners, we combine resources and leverage our talents to drive broader social and systemic change. Collectively, we make a greater impact on creating an educated and thriving community.the community investment fund is allocated through a rigorous application process reviewed by volunteers. Site visits are also conducted of funded programs. Based on this exhaustive assessment, recommendations for funding are submitted to the uwna finance committee for review and decisions on final allocation of the community investment fund is made by the uwna board of directors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 70% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% 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. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 80
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.4%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.71 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 39.9%; rating input score 40; 14th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.4%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.64; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.4% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 27 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 26 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 40/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 43/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.