Southwest Missouri Cattlemens Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272553056
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Golden City, MO, USA
Phone
4173661326
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Animal-Related N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$52,162
Expenses
$24,211
Assets
$55,987
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID SPERANDIO (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DAVID SPERANDIO (PRESIDENT)
  • DR ADAM MCGEE (VICE PRESIDE)
  • STEPHANIE FIZETTE (TREASURER)

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

Southwest cattlemen's association exists as an organization dedicated to educate the public and producers in the areas of production, wholesomeness, sustainable practices, safe handling protocols of cattle, and to engage in collaborative activities with state, regional, and national cattlemen's associations, and with other agricultural producer groups and associations with a common interest. As a result of this, we hold monthly meetings that focus on various topics of beef cattle production. We also host an annual beef cattle farm tour in the area as an educational event. In addition, throughout the year, we grill steaks for various community functions as a way to promote beef to the public and as a way to raise funds for educational scholarships that we grant. We also spend some time in jefferson city visiting with state legislators about current issues that affect beef cattle producers.

What it reported doing in 2025

Education of the public and producers through public activities, tours and scholarships.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% 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 74% for direct work, 25% for grants, and 1% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 68
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 39.8%; rating input score 40
  • Program expense ratio: 85.7%; rating input score 86
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 53.6%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.31; rating input score 40; 40th 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: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 39.8% of revenue deployed · 85.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $21K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 40/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.