Missouri Cattlemen's Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 436053144
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2021
- Location
- Columbia, MO, USA
- Phone
- 5734999162
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,026,857
- Expenses
- $1,928,590
- Assets
- $750,634
- Liabilities
- $87,694
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- MICHAEL DEERING (Executive Vice President)
- ANITA VANDERWERT (VICE PRESIDENT)
- CHUCK MILLER (PRESIDENT)
- JEFF REED (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
Highest reported compensation
- MICHAEL DEERING (Executive Vice President): $167,667 total reported compensation
- MARVIN DIECKMAN (Treasurer): $750 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 goal of the association is to protect and promote the economic, educational, political, and social interests of the cattle industry at the local, state, and national levels.
What it reported doing in 2024
The association represents over 2,000 cattle producers and interested parties in the state of Missouri. The largest single event the association accomplishes each year is the operation of the beef house each august at the Missouri state fair in sedalia, mo. At this fair, the general public is able to purchase locally produced products that enhance their knowledge of the beef industry. The association also publishes the Missouri cattle industry news magazine to educate their members on current events that may impact the cattle industry.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 92
- Transparency & Controls: 54
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 38
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 96.6%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: $61.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 4th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 4.8%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.7%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.1% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.9% of revenue deployed · 96.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $168K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 34/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.