United Way of the Black Hills

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
460259754
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Rapid City, SD, USA
Phone
6053435872
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,727,790
Expenses
$2,524,089
Assets
$9,072,498
Liabilities
$421,355

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JASON SANDERSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN CASS (EXECUTIVE DI): $102,988 total reported compensation
  • KATHY CRUSE (DIRECTOR OF): $99,484 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

United way of the black hills organizes and implements an annual fundraising campaign to help support the budgets of local nonprofit agencies. Currently, community-wide campaigns are conducted in rapid city, sturgis and the northern hills communities of lead, deadwood, spearfish and belle fourche, as well as the southern hills communities of hot springs, custer, hill city, keystone, and edgemont. The organization also spearheads efforts to identify community needs, develops a community response to those needs, and promotes teamwork among local nonprofits.

What it reported doing in 2025

Accepted a "grade-level reading initiative grant" that will be used to coordinate literacy efforts in the community amongst local nonprofit agencies, identify areas of strength and weaknesses, and guide the development of initial goals and collaborative projects. Initiated a non-profit foundation grant to provide project management, facilitation, and support to the early learner rapid city initiative and the black hills reads program, supervised by united way of the black hills.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 44% for direct work, 52% for grants, and 4% for affiliated organizations.
  • 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: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.1%; rating input score 92; 43rd 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; 64th 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: -46.1%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.59; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.3% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $103K · 24 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $170K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 39 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 37 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.