Missouri Society of Professional Engineers Educational Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237025721
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jefferson City, MO, USA
- Phone
- 7852334512
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $39,100
- Expenses
- $66,816
- Assets
- $989,548
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEPHEN HUTTI (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- STEPHEN HUTTI (PRESIDENT)
- DAVID HEISE (VICE PRESIDE)
- TIA GRIFFIN (TRESURER)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To provide scholarships at Missouri engineering schools, to promote the study of engineering through quality programs, to encourage and enhance access to excellent engineering education curriculums and successful engineering careers.
What it reported doing in 2024
Chapter grants - the foundation developed a chapter grants program in 2001-2002 as a means for mspe's members to encourage and promote stem activities to school age children. At its annual meeting each june, the foundation's board of directors establishes a budget from the foundation's donations. Chapters must submit a written detailed plan, schedule, and budget for all chapter activites that they wish to be considered for foundation funding. These written plans, schedules and budgets must be sent directly by the mspe educational foundation office in jefferson city and be received no later than january 1st of each year; to be reviewed and grant amounts determined by the educational foundation's executive committee and approved by the board of directors at their january meeting.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Investment-supported. 61% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 63
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 48
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 88%; rating input score 88
- Program expense ratio: 40.6%; rating input score 41
- 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; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -70.9%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.81; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 19.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 88% of revenue deployed · 40.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and related organizations
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2014 to 2024
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.