Ozarks Literacy Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431162068
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Springfield, MO, USA
Phone
4173808976
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$194,734
Expenses
$146,412
Assets
$178,907
Liabilities
$8,674

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amy Jardell (Executive director)
  • Sunni Nutt (President)
  • Rubecca Wilson (Vice President)
  • Sarah Kerner (Past President)

People named in this filing

  • Amy Jardell (Executive director)
  • Sunni Nutt (President)
  • Rubecca Wilson (Vice President)

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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Teach reading to adults and children at no charge, advocate for literacy and reading at schools and civic events, and provide free books to students and the public. Work to create a more literate community and provide a positive literacy experience for our learners.

What it reported doing in 2024

Ozarks Literacy Council has tutored 156 students in 2024 provided over 13500 free books and over 32,000 volunteer hours promoting literacy. Direct program expenses exclude allocated salaries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 11
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 9.6%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 12.2%; rating input score 12

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.8%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.22; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.1% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 9.6% of revenue deployed · 12.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $18K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.