United Way of the Great River Region

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
426067437
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Keokuk, IA, USA
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$356,272
Expenses
$323,889
Assets
$536,609
Liabilities
$2,988

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARLA CLARK (IM PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DR DYNEAH CLASSEN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • AMY GRAHAM (PRESIDENT)
  • J MICHAEL GREENSLAUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • PAM BIERWIRTH (DIRECTOR)
  • MARLA CLARK (IM PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DENA MAST (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

In partnership with united way worldwide, improves lives by mobilizing the caring power of communities to advance the common good. Serves lee county, ia; hancock county, il; and clark county, mo.

What it reported doing in 2024

United way identifies community needs and develops plans to meet human needs in our area. We engage a large variety of community partners in assessing needs and coordinating a community-wide response to local needs. Intended community outcomes guiding our funding choices include: 1. Our youth and children are healthy and well prepared for life in their education, character and life experience. Priority - provide access to sports, life-skills, and learning opportunities for low income families. 2. Peoples basic needs are met and they progress toward financial independence. Priority - providing basic needs of food, shelter, and utility assistance. 3. Our community has strong families and healthy individuals. Priorities - programs that assist seniors or disabled with employment and self-sufficiency, programs to reduce the usage of controlled substances in youth/children, child abuse reduction.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 46% for direct work, and 54% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 56
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 57
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.5%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 70.6%; rating input score 71
  • Fundraising efficiency: $21.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.66; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.3% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.5% of revenue deployed · 70.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $229K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • 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.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 49/100.