Associated General Contractors of Missouri
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 440155790
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2013
- Forms available
- Form 990 2013
- Location
- Jefferson City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 5736363188
- Rating
- 50
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $596,413
- Expenses
- $679,565
- Assets
- $733,032
- Liabilities
- $537,556
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DOUGLAS SMITH (PRESIDENT)
- JACK ATTERBERRY (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JACK ATTERBERRY (PRESIDENT): $108,762 total reported compensation
- DOUGLAS SMITH (PRESIDENT): $106,278 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote skill, responsibility, and integrity within the Missouri construction industry. To promote and support public safety to construction workers and the public. To promote the advancement of the construction industry of the state of Missouri.to promote and advance new methods of and specifications for construction. To establish a good working relationship between the owner, contractor, and employees. To represent the heavy, highway and municipal utility construction interests within its jurisdiction as chartered by the associated general contractors of america.
What it reported doing in 2013
Annual convention brings together contractors & suppliers in the construction industry to educate them through educational & motivational sessions about the latest developments in the field & to explore innovative solutions to problems.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 67% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
The verdict
MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- 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; 73rd 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -13.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.73; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 31.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $109K · 16 people listed
- Consistency: 15 of 16 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2010 to 2013
- 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.
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: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 14/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.