Council for Drug Free Youth

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431419547
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736362411
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$333,036
Expenses
$344,658
Assets
$149,966
Liabilities
$2,799

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RON FITZWATER (President)
  • LUKE ROLING (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANDREA HOLLOWAY (Executive Dir.): $54,654 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Motivate, educate, and collaborate to promote healthy drug free lifestyles among youth in mid-Missouri.

What it reported doing in 2024

Second chance is an early intervention program that helps reduce underage alcohol and drug use. Second chance is a program that empowers families with hope; offering insight into family dynamics and a new set of tools to help with communication and prevention. The schools throughout mid-Missouri are working together to provide early intervention to teens and their parents by providing classes facilitated by substance abuse professionals allowing the student to acquire skills in making healthy future choices. The program is designed to give youth an alternative to the dire consequences of substance abuse and provide solutions to long term suspension. The program consists of 6 classes on a rotating schedule facilitated by a licensed counselor in a dynamic format that engages both parents and youth, simultaneously. Specific behavioral supports and protective factors are addressed during the group sessions. Areas of discussion include relapse prevention, individual counseling, social support groups and self-help groups, abuse/dependency and addiction issues, communication, social situations, stress, decision making, ownership, negative thinking, self-worth, treatment referrals, and why kids do drugs!

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 65.2%; rating input score 65
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.9%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 65.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 16 filed program accomplishments · $225K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 41/100.