Missouri Recovery Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471239408
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2016–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2019, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736341029
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Education N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$77,154
Expenses
$182,719
Assets
$11,270

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

People named in this filing

  • BRENDA SCHELL (Executive Dir.)
  • JUDIE DIDRIKSEN (Treasurer)
  • JEAN SOKORA (Secretary)

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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote awareness of substance abuse disorders and strengthen recovery

What it reported doing in 2019

Dmh training agreement- this agreement is between mo coalition and the department of mental health. In addition to naming mo coalition missoury recovery network's fiscal agent, it also lists the activities that are to be carried out by mrn. Some of these services include: planning, public awareness, representing the voice of recovery for individual families dealing with substance abuse issues, educating the general public, general assembly, and the community about substance use disorders and promoting resources.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 34.6%; rating input score 35

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -136.8%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -22.7% per year; rating input score 0; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -40.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -55.7% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82% of revenue deployed · 34.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $63K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2016 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.