Osage County Anti-drug Community Action Team Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812891450
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Linn, MO, USA
Phone
5738103483
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Alcohol, Drug Abuse, Prevention Only

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$216,380
Expenses
$206,716
Assets
$18,622
Liabilities
$3,294

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LYLE BEST (President)
  • CHARLOTTE BELLSMITH (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LORIE WINSLOW (Executive Dir.): $61,000 total reported compensation
  • LISA GARRITANO (Secretary): $10,988 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To educate the community and school on substance misuse prevention and suicide prevention, and address the issues that surround both of these topics in osage county, Missouri.

What it reported doing in 2025

Prevention & Recovery Support Services: OC-ADCAT strengthened substance-use prevention and mental-health supports for Osage County youth and families. The coalition completed a Strengthening Families course with drug-court participants, delivered evidence-based prevention curricula in schools, and provided mental-health first-aid instruction to students and staff in several districts. Youth leaders organized Red Ribbon Week outreach and co-hosted meet-and-greets, game nights, and a record-breaking holiday event. Community outreach featured NARCAN, CPR, and Stop-the-Bleed sessions, wellness fairs, 988 presentations, and a county-wide student survey, while renovations advanced on a new youth center.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 90% 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 assets have declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.2%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 80.8%; rating input score 81
  • Fundraising efficiency: $214.32 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.5%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.8%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -55.4% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.2% of revenue deployed · 80.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.