Schofield Cemetery

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
436045060
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Half Way, MO, USA
Phone
4174452596
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Cemeteries

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,464
Expenses
$18,334
Assets
$667,210
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DALE DUNSETH (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DALE DUNSETH (PRESIDENT)
  • NANCY VEST (SECRETARY)
  • ALBERT VEST (VICE PRES)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide for the perpetual care, maintenance and upkeep of the schofield cemetery loacted in polk county Missouri

What it reported doing in 2025

Funds received from a benefactor invested in various financial

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 90% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
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 program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 40
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 12
  • Sustainability: 82
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 34.2%; rating input score 34
  • Program expense ratio: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 10th 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: 49.7%; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 36.39; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 39.8% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 34.2% of revenue deployed · 61.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $11K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.