Woodlawn United Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
274051072
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Birmingham, AL, USA
Phone
2055996963
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,505,121
Expenses
$4,027,170
Assets
$17,457,237
Liabilities
$2,960,210

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MASHONDA TAYLOR (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MASHONDA TAYLOR (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $197,333 total reported compensation
  • MEGHAN ANN HELLENGA (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER (FORMER)): $162,500 total reported compensation
  • JOE D AYERS (COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFI): $123,677 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The foundation will serve as a catalyst and facilitator for the transformation and revitalization of the woodlawn community in birmingham, Alabama into a vibrant and sustainable community in which its residents have an opportunity to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community wellness: to provide community-specific mix of facilities, programs, and services that honor local history, reflect the priorities of residents, promote healthy lifestyles, create jobs, and reduce crime.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 87% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.63 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: 78.3%; rating input score 78; 21st 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: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -60.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.33; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 76.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 18 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $241K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • 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: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.