Urban Neighborhood Initiative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454879810
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8162310822
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,057,000
Expenses
$2,733,958
Assets
$2,927,019
Liabilities
$1,525,338

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JAMEE RODGERS (CEO & PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JAMEE RODGERS (CEO & PRESIDENT): $176,842 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Unis mission is to partner with Kansas citys urban core neighborhoods to bring business, government, and community organizations together to improve prosperity, health, safety & education in the community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Vacant to vibrant - works to reduce the number of vacant properties within the uni area, ensure that revitalization efforts build sustainable and equitable neighborhoods that are healthy, safe and attractive places to live and shared by people of all economic levels. Under this umbrella, uni managed three acton groups: clear titles green spaces, and promote equitable neighborhoods (pen). Clear titles worked to improve the notice process for properties which are going into tax sale. Green spaces facilitates a process to engage uni neighborhood residents to prioritize vacant lots which they would like to be transformed. Pen works to promote affordable housing stategies from kcmos housing policy recommendations while also engaging demonstration block residents to identify assets, describe their vision for the block and help to identify resources to make the vision real.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 64% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 45
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 99.8%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

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: -32.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.1% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 99.8% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $177K · 24 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 34 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.