Nemo Workforce Investment Board In

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431895649
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017
Location
Paris, MO, USA
Phone
6603275125
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,552,150
Expenses
$1,550,708
Assets
$48,135
Liabilities
$28,711

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

People named in this filing

  • COREY MEHAFFY (CHAIRMAN)
  • DARIN ARNSMEYER (VICE CHAIR)
  • JANICE ROBINSON (SECRETARY TR)

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 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the wib is to maintain a private and public partnership with northeast Missouri that develops workfoce investment policies, evaluates local workforce skills needed by local business and industry, oversees the local workforce investment efforts, ensures the coordinated and efficient use of workforce investment re3sources, and provides leadership, direction and accountability for the resources.

What it reported doing in 2017

To create and sustain a skilled workforce that supports the current and future needs of business and industry and enhances the economic prosperity of the citizens of the northeast region of Missouri.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 99% 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

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 revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 88.4%; rating input score 88
  • Program expense ratio: 88.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.03; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.6; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -30.5% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 88.4% of revenue deployed · 88.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 22 of 22 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 22 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.