Missouri Rural Health Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431691291
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736322700
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Reported finances

Revenue
$956,688
Expenses
$915,724
Assets
$260,565
Liabilities
$9,422

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Heidi Lucas (Executive Director)
  • Tim Shryack (President)
  • Katie Reichard (President Elect)

Highest reported compensation

  • Heidi Lucas (Executive Director): $93,500 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 association is a non-profit organization whose mission is to safeguard and improve the health of rural missourians. The association accomplishes this mission by engaging in partnerships and providing leadership on rural issues through advocacy, communication, education and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

HealthTran, launched in 2014, is a volunteer driver program designed to bridge persistent rural transportation gaps and improve health outcomes for Missourians. It collaborates with local community champions and partner agencies to assess transportation needs, recruit vetted volunteer drivers, and coordinate rides through a HIPAA-compliant scheduling platform. By providing reliable transportation to healthcare and wellness services, HealthTran helps reduce missed appointments and prevent unnecessary emergency room visits.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 65% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.5%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 94.5%; rating input score 94
  • 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: Limited
  • 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.28; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 18.5% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.7% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 90.5% of revenue deployed · 94.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $865K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $94K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.