Infra

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
440533308
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736350208
Rating
50
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$605,463
Expenses
$619,211
Assets
$928,973
Liabilities
$74,360

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRIS WILLIAMS (President)
  • RYAN WINTER (President)
  • TIM DOBBELARE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAN KLEINSORGE (Executive Dir.): $135,233 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To encourage the formulation of government policies that support investment in the sustainable development of Missouri's crushed stone resources. To provide a network for the effective exchange of information within the crushed stone industry throughout Missouri and with various mining industries throughout the United States. To communicate the economic importance and environmentally responsible nature of the crushed stone industry to the public and to government.

What it reported doing in 2024

Meetings throughout the year included six board of director meetings, two Infra/MODOT Cooperative Committee meeting, two Environmental Committee meetings, four Infra Scholarship Committee meetings, two Infra Convention Committee meetings, two Emerging Leaders meetings, one Safety Committee meeting, and five Co-Partner with Missouri Mine Safety and Health meetings.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 92% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

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: 90
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 38
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.5; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.8%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th 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 · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 6 filed program accomplishments · $107K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.