Reconciliation Services

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364580402
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8169314751
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,061,877
Expenses
$3,686,975
Assets
$8,188,570
Liabilities
$1,182,325

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RYAN BRUNTON (BOARD PRESIDENT)
  • ELIZABETH DANFORTH (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT I)
  • RONDA FREEMAN (BOARD VICE PRESIDENT II)
  • FR JUSTIN MATHEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • FR JUSTIN MATHEWS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $182,617 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The organization's mission is to address the root causes and symptoms of poverty and trauma in our city, reconciliation services engages with individuals to:1. Promote dignity by increasing personal well-being2. Foster healthy community by transforming dividing lines into gathering places3. Help people advocate for themselves, their families, and their neighbors

What it reported doing in 2024

Reveal social & mental health services offers a comprehensive approach to individual and community healing through strengths-based, trauma-informed individual and group therapy and case support and case management. Services include: housing stability services; utilities assistance; id/document assistance; dental/medical supplies/services and prescriptions through access kc; case management and case support; and individual and group therapy addressing anxiety, depression, and trauma. 4500 of case management, case support and therapy were offered, 2800 id and vital documents were provided, 1,050 received rent and utility support, and 113 were helped with essential prescriptions and other medical supplies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 69
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.6%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 74.1%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.56 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -20.4%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.22; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.6% of revenue deployed · 74.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $183K · 17 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 7/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.