Association of Gaming Equipment Manufacturers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
880468000
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Las Vegas, NV, USA
Phone
7028126932
Rating
38
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,741,924
Expenses
$1,690,713
Assets
$1,941,638
Liabilities
$14,300

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • DARON DORSEY (EXECUTIVE DI): $321,667 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The association of gaming equipment manufacturers (agem) is an international trade association representing manufacturers of electronic gaming devices, systems, and components for the gaming industry. The association, as a good corporate citizen, identifies and acts upon issues relating to education, trade show representation, regulation, manufacturing and licensing standards, and promotes the expansion of responsible gaming for the benefit of its members and the industry.

What it reported doing in 2025

To advocate the fair and reasonable enforcement and imposition of statutes and regulations pertaining to manufacturers and suppliers of gaming devices and related equipment.

Operating model

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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 56
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 42
  • Growth: 60

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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Limited
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 98.3%; rating input score 98; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 28th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $322K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $322K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 16 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 11 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.