Metro Organization for Racial Economic Equity Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202470054
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8162775912
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Intergroup, Race Relations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$497,019
Expenses
$584,012
Assets
$257,461
Liabilities
$266

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

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LORA MCDONALD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • RONALD C CARTER (TREASURER)
  • RONALD ACHELPOHL (SECRETARY)
  • DAVID GRUMMON (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

More2 trains and develops leaders from the faith community, across lines of religion, race, socio-economic status, geography, to work together to address the communitys most pressing issues of inequity.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of the Kansas integrated voter engagement program is to teach and develop leaders to engage voters in their communities. Specifically, faith leaders are trained to engage voters about the issues related to safe, healthy and vibrant communities and how this specifically connects to the power of voting and otherwise engaging in democracy (such as attending public meetings). Etc.) over 58,000 voters were contacted. We had an amazing response rate: typically, text banking yields 1-4% interactions but our faith leaders achieved 12%.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 49.5%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.22 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 22nd 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -17.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 49.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 39 of 39 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $289K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 39 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.