United Way of the Midlands Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
470922285
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Omaha, NE, USA
Phone
4023428232
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$291,075
Expenses
$755,020
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHAWNA FORSBERG (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHAWNA FORSBERG (PRESIDENT): $272,202 total reported compensation
  • PAMELA SCHWALB (COO): $184,948 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide support and benefit to the united way of the midlands by raising assets and funds to create sufficient earnings to fund programs provided by the united way of the midlands.

What it reported doing in 2016

The united way of the midlands foundation is a not-for-profit corporation created solely and exclusively to support and benefit the united way of the midlands by raising assets to create sufficient earnings to: 1) fund both its direct and indirect costs as approved by the united way of the midlands foundation's board of directors in the annual operating budget 2) increase campaign dollars and/or offset operating costs for the united way of the midlands 3) provide flexibility in current program support, and 4) provide future capacity as the united way of the midlands addresses changing human care needs in the community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 82.4%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 79th 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: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -159.4%; rating input score 1; 1st 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: 8.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 38.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 82.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $622K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $272K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.