American Society of Interior Designers - Missouri East Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237417528
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Clayton, MO, USA
Phone
3144277933
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$75,832
Expenses
$78,754
Assets
$69,809
Liabilities
$859

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT IDOL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • AMENA ZAMORA (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT IDOL (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • AMENA ZAMORA (PRESIDENT)
  • M JOYCE MATHIS (MEMBERSHIP 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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Our main purpose is to provide education on interior design. We educate students through the student design conference, the general public through special events, such as our "showcase" event, and our members through our member meetings, which keep them current on changes in the profession.

What it reported doing in 2016

To provide education on interior design through designer sessions, web page advertising and educational materials. Also, to educate the general public, members through monthly chapter meetings, newsletters, advertising and awards.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 76% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -3.9%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.7% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 38/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.