Midwest Multistate Division Service Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 814025582
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2017–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Jefferson City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 5736364623
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $799,737
- Expenses
- $790,395
- Assets
- $367,364
- Liabilities
- $64,365
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JILL KLIETHERMES (CEO)
- LINDA HARDY (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JILL KLIETHERMES (CEO): $140,108 total reported compensation
- KIMBERLY CAPPS (FIN DIRECTOR): $39,178 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of midwest multistate division service corporation is to promote efficiencies and growth among nurses' associations across the united state. Members of the midwest multistate division service corporation include Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and Minnesota.
What it reported doing in 2025
Accredited approver unit: this unit reviews individual education activity (iea) and approved provider (ap) applications from providers located across the midwest. Individual activity applications arrive sporadically throughout the year and approved provider applications arrive on a three cycle review schedule through the year. Each type of application has an association review fee. For ieas the application review fee is based on the number of contract hours under review- the tiers are 200 as a base plus 10 per contract hour for activities over 5.1 contract hours in length. For ap applications the review fee is based on the type of agency-single agency provider 2,000 and system provider 4,800. There are other revenue sources such as intent-to-apply fees, annual fees, etc that also generate revenue for the midwest msd.
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
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 27
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- 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; 64th 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: 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: 1.2%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $140K · 8 people listed
- Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2017 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.