Vision Rehabilitation Center of the Ozar
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 272017276
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020, Form 990-EZ 2011
- Location
- Springfield, MO, USA
- Phone
- 4178310555
- Rating
- 70
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health Treatment Facilities, Primarily Outpatient
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $266,323
- Expenses
- $326,338
- Assets
- $328,291
- Liabilities
- $199,114
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN TREADWAY (PRESIDENT)
- BRANDI CASTEEL (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- CHRIS BOSCHEN (DIRECTOR)
- BETH HARVILLE (DIRECTOR)
- PAM MARION (DIRECTOR)
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 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The optometrists and occupational therapist at vrco specialize in low vision and neurological based vision impairments services to people of all ages. Low vision is a partial loss of sight. It is often a loss of visual acuity or sharpness, but may be a loss of side vision or extreme difficulty with light or glare. Low vision exists when these conditions cannot be corrected with eyeglasses, contact lenses, medication or surgery and interferes with normal activities of daily living. Low vision services do not cure the cause of low vision, nor do they replace the need for other concurrent treatments such as surgery or medical care, although they do maximize remaining vision. Damage to the brain due to conditions such as strokes, head trauma, tumors, aneurysm correction, lack of oxygen as well as degenerative disease such as parkinson's quite often effects vision. Common symptoms are double vision, loss of vision on one side, poor eye muscle control, reading difficulties and problems with
What it reported doing in 2020
First stepsvrco provides children with visual impairments, age's birth to three and their families, the initial supports to have a positive impact on development during the early childhood years. Supports provided by vrco include:*a home visit to collect information about the child and their family.*monthly monitoring sessions with a certified teacher of the visually impaired.*resources on the community, state, and national levels that are available to children and families*eye exams by optometrists specializing in low vision and neurological based vision impairments*specialized services include: teaching the use of braille orientation & mobility deafblind instruction low vision AIDS assistive technology parent education & support
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 65% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 84
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 26
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.6%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -22.5%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.4% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -0.7% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 77.6% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $207K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 18 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2020
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 13/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.