Missouri Universal Service Fund Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431818855
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736341137
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Consumer Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$596,615
Expenses
$627,391
Assets
$429,931
Liabilities
$59,013

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

People named in this filing

  • MAIDA J COLEMAN (BOARD CHAIR)
  • GLEN KOLKMEYER (SECRETARY)
  • KAYLA HAHN (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The Missouri universal service board, inc. Was organized as a non-profit, public benefit corporation on may 20, 1998 under the laws of the state of Missouri. The organization was created by Missouri revised statute 392.248 and was charged with establishing a universal service fund to provide financial assistance to Missouri's low-income and disabled telecommunications consumers. The fund is governed by the Missouri universal service board pursuant to the rules of the Missouri department of economic development at 4 csr 240-31.

What it reported doing in 2024

Funds from the universal service fund shall only be used (1) to ensure the provision of reasonably comparable essential local telecommunications services throughout the state at just, reasonable, and affordable rates; (2) to assist low income and disabled customers in affordable essential telecommunications services; and (3) to pay the reasonable, audited costs of administering the universal service fund. Funds collected from contributors by the administrator, through a carrier surcharge of net jurisdictional revenues, are restricted as to their intended use related to the low income support mechanisms established pursuant to 4 csr 240-31.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 34
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 84.7%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 91.3%; rating input score 91; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -5.2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -7.4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -17% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.7% of revenue deployed · 84.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $531K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 17 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 21 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.