United Way of Skagit County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
910755705
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlington, WA, USA
Phone
3607559521
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$553,211
Expenses
$716,506
Assets
$590,304
Liabilities
$140,651

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Andrew Miller (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Andrew Miller (Executive Director): $46,186 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

United Way of Skagit County's mission is to build a positive and sustainable quality of life for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Health and Income Collaborative Initiatives - Rural communities thrive when organizations work together to address interconnected challenges. United Way of Skagit County leverages collaborative approaches to maximize impact across health and economic security initiatives.Through our advisory role with the Population Health Trust, we help coordinate county-wide efforts to improve quality of life, ensuring rural voices are centered in health policy decisions. Our support of Youth United creates leadership pathways for rural high school students, with participants completing over 100 volunteer hours each to earn varsity recognitiontransforming community service into a celebrated achievement equal to athletic success.We also maintain critical community data infrastructure through our partnership on the Skagit County indicators website, ensuring that nonprofits, schools, and public agencies serving rural areas have access to the data needed to make informed decisions and secure resources.Impact: These collaborative investments strengthen the entire ecosystem supporting rural families, creating sustainable pathways to wellness and prosperity that individual organizations couldn't achieve alone.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, 35% for grants, and 3% for affiliated organizations.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.4%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 51.3%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $11.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.2%; rating input score 86; 36th 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -29.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.4% of revenue deployed · 51.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $367K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $46K · 21 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $102K reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.