United Way of Northern Shenandoah Valley Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540525106
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Winchester, VA, USA
Phone
5406629366
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$974,368
Expenses
$1,135,418
Assets
$2,308,782
Liabilities
$624,942

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT A GAIL (FORMER PRES/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ROBERT A GAIL (FORMER PRES/CEO): $94,854 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 organization works to increase the organized capacity of people to care for one another. It conducts an annual campaign in the fall of each year to raise support for allocation to participating agencies in the subsequent fiscal year.

What it reported doing in 2024

During the current fiscal year, the united way nsv disbursed $30,000 from the ready region blue ridge /united way of greater charlottesville to support the establishment of an early education position. The intent is to facilitate initial efforts in the early education space within the northern shenandoah valley region. Also, during the year the united way nsw collaborated with the john & janice wyatt foundation on two grants. The first has an annual budget of $70,000 for a three year period formed to develop and execute two actvities within the winchester campaign for grade level reading strategy. The second one has an annual budget of $45,000- for a three year period formed to develop and execute the leyendo juntos (winchester reads together) english language learner (lel) strategy within the winchester campaign for grade level reading.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 72% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.6%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 32nd 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -16.5%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.03; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.27; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.6% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.3% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.6% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 20 of 20 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $959K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $95K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 29 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 28 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 48/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.