Missouri Association of County Transportation Officials
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 300342468
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Ashland, MO, USA
- Phone
- 6603490892
- Rating
- 88
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Charity, Voluntarism Promotion
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $135,605
- Expenses
- $123,769
- Assets
- $75,701
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
People named in this filing
- JIM FRANCKA (DIRECTOR)
- JASON SIVILS (ASSOCIATE MEMBER)
- BRIAN MITCHELL (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The objectives of the association shall be to promote the cooperation of the county transportation officials of Missouri and increase their efficiency as public officers; to further the best interest of the general public through the application of sound engineering principles in the construction and maintenance of bridges and highways under county jurisdiction and to provide educational means to those effecting and effected by the construction and maintenance of bridges and highways under county jurisdiction.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 90% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 54
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8.7%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 48.9% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 39.6% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $124K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.