Missouri Bicycle Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203389214
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2011–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2010, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
8163362550
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$86,804
Expenses
$56,355
Assets
$41,444
Liabilities
$12,565

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH TORRISI (PRESIDENT)
  • JAN NEITZERT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRENT HUGH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • JOSEPH TORRISI (PRESIDENT)
  • JAN NEITZERT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PAUL SIDWELL (TREASURER)

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

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote good health and physical activity through bicycling and walking, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and education of bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists.

What it reported doing in 2013

Education - educate the public, motorists, and bicyclists about bicycle safety and safe and effective bicycling practices on the road and on the trail.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.4%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 68.3%; rating input score 68

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 35.1%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.5%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -60.7% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.1% per year; rating input score 0; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.4% of revenue deployed · 68.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2011 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

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

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.