United Ways of Texas Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 741618608
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5126511149
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,725,383
- Expenses
- $1,746,373
- Assets
- $2,037,216
- Liabilities
- $738,027
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ROXANNE S JONES (PRESIDENT/CEO)
- LAUREN RICHARD (FOUNDING PRESIDENT/CEO OF MENTOR TX)
Highest reported compensation
- ROXANNE S JONES (PRESIDENT/CEO): $183,058 total reported compensation
- LAUREN RICHARD (FOUNDING PRESIDENT/CEO OF MENTOR TX): $158,557 total reported compensation
- KIMBERLEE BROWN (DIR. OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION): $141,021 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
United ways of Texas (uwt) exists to strengthen and support the work and impact of local united ways in Texas.
What it reported doing in 2024
State employee charitable campaign - united ways of Texas manages the state employee charitable campaign (secc), a payroll deduction campaign that allows current and retired state and higher education employees an opportunity to give to hundreds of local, state, national and international nonprofits. Uwt works to increase the campaign through promoting a unified message around the campaign, launching a user-friendly website to provide detailed information regarding the campaign, providing helpful tools to state employees to help advance the campaign in their workplace, researching new ways to promote and grow the campaign, and working towards program effeciences. The Texas secc campaign is one of the largest state employee campaigns in the country.
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 65% for direct work, and 35% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 33
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 86.1%; rating input score 86
- Program expense ratio: 85.1%; rating input score 85
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.87 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 68.5%; rating input score 68; 32nd 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: 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: Pass
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -1.2%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 27.6%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 86.1% of revenue deployed · 85.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 7 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 17 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 14 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.