Missouri Society of Association Executives

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
431352862
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Jefferson City, MO, USA
Phone
5736598898
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$78,330
Expenses
$53,129
Assets
$157,874

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GARY GATES (PRESIDENT)
  • BILL PLANK CAE (PRESIDENT EL)

People named in this filing

  • GARY GATES (PRESIDENT)
  • BILL PLANK CAE (PRESIDENT EL)
  • DAN KLEINSORGE (SECRETARY/TR)

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

To promote and support Missouri association executives.

What it reported doing in 2025

Missouri society of association executives (msae) hosted twelve social networking events, three educational programs, and its annual event summit. The networking events regularly brought together approximately 20-30 members, creating valuable opportunities for relationship-building, peer connections, and professional engagement within Missouri's association community. Msae's three educational events engaged approximately 75 attendees total, providing relevant industry insights, professional development, and discussions focused on strengthening association leadership and operations. In addition, the annual event summit convened association professionals and industry partners from across the association management field for education, networking, collaboration, and engagement with vendors and service providers that support associations throughout Missouri.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 66
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.2%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.97; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2010 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.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.