MCC Thrift Shops

Legal name: Mcc Resource Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
351882448
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Goshen, IN, USA
Phone
5745341828
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,557,561
Expenses
$2,593,317
Assets
$1,794,532
Liabilities
$33,503

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REX HOCHSTEDLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REX HOCHSTEDLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $91,730 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Before the first shops opened, Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) shipped gently-used clothes all over the world. With rising shipping costs, the organization decided money would be better spent buying items locally at a fraction of the cost. After hearing about this change, Linie Friesen, Selma Loewen, Susan Giesbrecht and Sara Stoesz dreamed up the concept of opening a temporary shop with the goal of turning secondhand clothing donations into cash to help others. Fast forward over 50 years with more than 85 shops in operation across Canada and the United States, MCC Thrift continues to provide relief, development and peace in the name of Christ for people all over the world. That’s winning.

What it reported doing in 2025

The depot receives donated used items from the community that keep them from the landfill and provide a second use. Over 300 volunteers dedicate over 60,000 hours of service to prepare donated items for sale. Over 1 million items are sold at affordable prices to the community. The resulting net income is donated to mennonite central committee for their mission work around the world. We also donate to local faith-based nonprofit organizations to help with their mission impact.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.8%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.4%; rating input score 97; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.4%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 9.4% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: Mission, programs, and operating context captured from the official website.
  • Where the money goes: 93.8% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $92K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.