Missouri Baptist Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN: 431466115
IRS 990 coverage: 2009–2024
Forms available: Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location: Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone: 5737610717
Rating: 72
Verdict: SUPPORTED
Rating confidence: Moderate
Sector: Fund Raising and Fund Distribution
Affiliation: Christianity

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue: $4,933,041
Expenses: $3,482,302
Assets: $236,594,788
Liabilities: $212,101,531

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

NEIL FRANKS (PRESIDENT & TREASURER)

Highest reported compensation

NEIL FRANKS (PRESIDENT & TREASURER): $205,128 total reported compensation
SHELLY VAUGHN (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $140,948 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the Missouri baptist foundation is to strengthen mission and ministry efforts of Missouri baptists.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization conducts estate stewardship education for members of baptist churches as well as estate and gift planning services provided to church members and others making plans to benefit their church and/or various baptist ministries. The purpose of the Missouri baptist foundation is to strengthen mission and ministry efforts of Missouri baptists within the state and around the world by providing resources and services that support, advance or further the religious and/or charitable purposes of churches, institutions, and other entities exempt from income tax by section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code.

Operating model

Revenue model: Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model: Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 81
Accountability: 91
Sustainability: 73
Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

Mission deployment rate: 52.8%; rating input score 53
Program expense ratio: 66.9%; rating input score 67
Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
Foreign activity oversight: Limited
Grant itemization coverage: 80.2%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

Operating margin: 29.4%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Total-asset coverage ratio: 67.94; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
Officer compensation ratio: 9.9%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
Revenue growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
Asset growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

Where the money goes: 52.8% of revenue deployed · 66.9% of spending went to programs
Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.3M in reported program spending
Leadership: top reported pay $205K · 15 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
Consistency: 35 of 36 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
Filing history: 12 filing years from 2009 to 2024
Contacts: How to reach this organization
Money network: 34 filed money-flow records
Related organizations: 31 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.
Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.