Missouri Organic Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431622852
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2011
Location
Hartsburg, MO, USA
Phone
5738010798
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,379,325
Expenses
$1,222,032
Assets
$1,157,288
Liabilities
$433,941

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIMI WASHBURN (PRESIDENT)
  • TERRY DURHAM (VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • MEREDITH SHAW RESIGNED (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ETHAN MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MEREDITH SHAW RESIGNED (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $47,889 total reported compensation
  • ETHAN MILLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $26,875 total reported compensation
  • JIMI WASHBURN (PRESIDENT): $24,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Missouri organic association was founded in 1993 by the organic farming community of Missouri. Through educational opportunities and outreach, we work to advise and support organic growers, producers, and to help create a more ecologically sound food environment for all.

What it reported doing in 2024

Moa, working in conjunction with the usda, is committed to supporting a diverse range of farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners through partnerships for climate-smart commodities. This project has worked to expand markets for america's climate-smart commodities, leverage the greenhouse gas benefits of climate-smart commodity production, and provide direct, meaningful benefits to production agriculture, including for small and underserved producers. Moa's focus has been on expanding the use of nrcs practice code 336, specifically the application of biochar to Missouri's working lands.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.1%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 49th 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: 11.4%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.6% per year; rating input score 100; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.1% of revenue deployed · 89.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $48K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 6 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.