Mercy

Legal name: Mercy Health Springfield Communities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431856028
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Springfield, MO, USA
Phone
405-615-6674
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Health Systems
Affiliation
Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,176,003
Expenses
$46,287,127
Assets
$233,944,384
Liabilities
$56,443,476

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

Leadership & pay

25 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MYERS JOHNATHON (PRESIDENT, MERCY SPRINGFIELD COMMUNITIES & BM)

Highest reported compensation

  • ARGUETA DAVID (FORMER OFFICER): $1,386,408 total reported compensation
  • CRITES J PETER (CHIEF PHYSICIAN EXECUTIVE & BOARD MEMBER): $1,236,625 total reported compensation
  • DOWING OAKLEY (PHYSICIAN & BOARD MEMBER): $942,480 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mercy is a Catholic health system dedicated to providing compassionate, high-quality care to all, especially the poor and vulnerable.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mercy health springfield communities is a supporting organization of mercy hospital springfield and mercy clinic springfield communities. Mercy health springfield communities also provided support services to other members of the mercy springfield community, including mercy hospital aurora, mercy hospital cassville, mercy hospital lebanon, and mercy st. Francis hospital. The support services included functions that, but for mercy health springfield communities, would be conducted by each separate organization.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 0

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: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 0th 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: 76%; rating input score 76; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.2%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.05; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.7%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -14.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 9 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $50.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.4M · 25 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $14.9M reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 25 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 107 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Series program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 53/100.