Missouri Community Action Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431041156
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736342969
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Services N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,140,129
Expenses
$3,906,974
Assets
$5,123,401
Liabilities
$435,987

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

Leadership & pay

30 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Megan Bania (Executive Director)
  • Terry Sanders (President)
  • Ryan Peterson (First Vice-President)
  • Traci Lawrence (Second Vice-President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Megan Bania (Executive Director): $109,410 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To advocate for low-income Missourians at the local, state, and national levels; and strengthen the Community Action Network through training, technical assistance, and the administration of programs that improve the lives of low-income families and communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Energy Fund: Funds provided through the Emergency Weatherization Support fund were provided by Missouri's investor-owned utilities. These entities are governed through the Missouri Public Service Commission who ultimately approves rates, cost sharing, and contributions required to support vulnerable Missourians. When utilities request increases to their rate cases, funding support is often required to support low-income Missourians through various programs including Weatherization to decrease energy burden. Funds for the Emergency Weatherization Fund were provided from shareholder dollars already allocated to Weatherization programs across the state through the rate case process. All funds were sent to Missouri CAN to distribute out to agencies providing weatherization services across the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 84% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.6%; rating input score 74
  • Program expense ratio: 85.8%; rating input score 86
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 44th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.09; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.6% of revenue deployed · 85.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 29 of 29 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $3.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 30 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 20 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.