Technology Student Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
810479867
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2018, Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Polson, MT, USA
Phone
4066988154
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,459
Expenses
$84,115
Assets
$213,887
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JESSE GRAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/STATE)

People named in this filing

  • JESSE GRAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/STATE)
  • MARY ELLEN EARHART (DIRECTOR)
  • TROY SMITH (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The technology student association (tsa) enhances personal development, leadership, and career opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem), whereby members apply and integrate these concepts through intracurricular activities, competitions, and related programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The technology student association fosters personal growth and leadership training to students through co-curricular activities, competitions, and related programs. In 2024, 1,787 students from 6 different schools were involved in these programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44.5%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 45.2%; rating input score 45

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.6%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.54; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 40.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44.5% of revenue deployed · 45.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 9 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2019 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.