Missourians Against Costly Mandates

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
454757361
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
St Louis, MO, USA
Phone
3146215070
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$0
Expenses
$22,676
Assets
$14,464

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ED RHODE (President)

People named in this filing

  • ED RHODE (President)
  • AUSTIN HUNT (Secretary)
  • MATTHEW J RAMSHAW (Treasurer)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Missourians Against Costly Mandates (the "Corporation") is a coalition consisting of individuals, small businesses, large corporations, utility companies, labor organizations, and other entities. Ongoing activities will include (1) recruiting new coalition members; (2) recruiting volunteer advocates; (3) fundraising; and (4) coordinating education and outreach efforts with like-minded groups, companies, and individuals wherever possible. The Corporation is focused on promoting knowledge and awareness among Missouri consumers with regard to energy issues, including informing them about Renewable Energy Standards and the costs and implications of different standards. It will seek to inform Missourians about reliability and access issues that arise when renewable energy sources are in use. The Corporation will also work to educate Missourians about energy policy and how it can greatly impact Missouri's energy future. The Corporation's informational and educational efforts will seek to mob

What it reported doing in 2013

Corporation successfully defeated the Missouri renewable energy standards initiative in the 2012 election cycle.

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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 17
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: Limited
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -200% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -87.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $23K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.