United Way of Superior Douglas County Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 396084805
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2014
- Forms available
- Form 990 2014
- Location
- Duluth, MN, USA
- Phone
- 7153942733
- Rating
- 68
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $357,057
- Expenses
- $318,372
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CINDY THEIEN (PRESIDENT)
- ERIC SILJENDAHL (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KATHLEEN MADSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KATHLEEN MADSEN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $60,419 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2014. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To build a stronger and healthier community and empower individuals to improve their lives.
What it reported doing in 2014
United way of superior douglas county, inc provided grants to over 23 area organizations. See schedule i for detail of grants given.approximately 700 children from newborns to 5 year olds received age appropriate books mailed to their homes monthly free of charge, to encourage early childhood literacy and kindergarten readiness through the dolly parton imagination library. Thirteen 'little blue bookshelves' were place around town at organizations where low-income families with young children could pick up a book and take it with them. Thirty high school students were court ordered to perform community service in lieu of a fine and placed at a not-for-profit site through our office to work off their fine. Ten uw-superior social work students provided academic service-learning hours or research hours to our office. Over 127 low-income youth received weekend backpacks with nutritional food to take home throughout the school year; we are the fiscal managers of this program. Twenty-one uw-superior business and ethics students learned about poverty and the affect it has on budgeting and the service providers who can help.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 76% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 76
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 31
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.5%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $14.19 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 87%; rating input score 87; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: Limited
- 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -25.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.5% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $269K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2014
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 13 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.