United Way of the Mohawk Valley Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
150532074
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Utica, NY, USA
Phone
3157334691
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Federated Giving Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,630,781
Expenses
$2,142,259
Assets
$2,002,245
Liabilities
$454,373

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM F PERROTTI (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA MANN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT CHAIR)
  • MATTHEW A NICHOLL (PRESIDENT)
  • SUSAN LITERA (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN LITERA (CEO/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SECRETARY): $120,231 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW CHANEY (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $48,674 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To create a thriving community by connecting people, resources, and solutions throughout the mohawk valley.

What it reported doing in 2024

Strategic community investment funding is concentrated around collaborative partnerships and coalitions, assessment of community needs, and the distribution of funds to support programs in the following focus areas: education, health, and financial stability. More specifically, early education, childcare, and homelessness prevention continue to be investment areas. United way of the mohawk valley, inc. (uwmv) funded 29 agencies in this fiscal year. In addition, uwmv led three initiatives: the collaborative applicant for the local housing coalition, live united youth program, and 211 mid york.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
  • 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: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 89
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 79.5%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.4%; rating input score 94; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 92.6%; rating input score 93; 40th 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: -31.4%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.93; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.9%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.1% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3.2% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 79.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $120K · 24 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 29 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.