Rotary International Springfield Southeast Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237405637
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Springfield, MO, USA
Phone
4178868606
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$238,149
Expenses
$217,912
Assets
$157,737
Liabilities
$12,550

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID COMPERE (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER BAKER (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • MICHAEL WEHRENBERG (PAST PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID COMPERE (PRESIDENT)
  • JENNIFER BAKER (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • STEVE BROOKS (SECRETARY)

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

Overview

Mission

The main objective of rotary is service in the community, in the workplace, and throughout the world. See schedule o for additional informationour community service projects address many of today's most critical issues - such as children at risk, poverty and hunger, the environment, illiteracy, and violence. We support programs for youth, educational opportunities and international exchanges for students, teachers, other professionals, and vocational and career development. The rotary motto is service above self.

What it reported doing in 2024

Community service: the club contributes to the springfield, Missouri community by organizing and funding programs for special olympics, the don't meth with us project for drug prevention in elementary and secondary schools, improving k-park, funding grants to a variety of local nonprofit organizations, and recognizing outstanding public servants in law enforcement and firefighting.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 67% for direct work, 19% for grants, and 14% for affiliated organizations.

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 program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 85
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.9%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 81.9%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 94.5%; rating input score 94; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.8% per year; rating input score 0; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.9% of revenue deployed · 81.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $179K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.