Barton County Electric Coop Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 440164765
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Lamar, MO, USA
- Phone
- 4176825636
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $21,237,414
- Expenses
- $21,237,414
- Assets
- $58,865,069
- Liabilities
- $28,932,435
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JEFF HULL (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- JEFF HULL (CEO): $314,412 total reported compensation
- BOBBY PULLIAM (OPERATIONS M): $155,887 total reported compensation
- TARA LITTLEJOHN (FINANCIAL MA): $151,841 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 improve farm production and living standards through electrical services provided to rural areas on a cooperative basis. To improve the economy of the community through electrical service provided to commercial, schools and churches. To promote a clean and safe environment through electrical service provided to landfills, highways and parks.
What it reported doing in 2024
Our organization has only one program service, providing electrical service for 6,856 active services on cooperative basis. We have 1,889 miles of energized line and during the year of 2024 we purchased 173,514,777 kwh of power to provide adequate service to our customers. Our objective is to keep service interruptions to a minimum. Service interruptions for 2024 were approximately 0.018 hours per customer for the year of service.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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
STRONG - 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.77; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $314K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $2.2M reported
- Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 14 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.