Acf Michigan Chefs De Cuisine Assoc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237304997
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
Location
Royal Oak, MI, USA
Phone
2489824603
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$48,900
Expenses
$38,305
Assets
$65,987
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JIM CHURCH (PRESIDENT)
  • FRANK R TURCHAN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MELISSA B TRIMMER (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KARA TERREAULT-TRIPLETT (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
  • KURT A KWIATKOWSKI (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JAMES KOKENYESDI (CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD)
  • JIM CHURCH (PRESIDENT)
  • FRANK R TURCHAN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)

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 primary exempt purpose of the acf Michigan de cuisine, inc. In conjunction with its sister organization, the Michigan culinary association, inc. (mca) EIN: 38-3394685, is through education to encourage and maintain high technical culinary arts standards in the preparation and service of food and beverages. The purpose was served in 2017 through the following: a. The Michigan chefs de cuisine, inc. Met its program service accomplishments primarily through its monthly membership meeting. Each monthly meeting featured a cooking demonstration or guest speaker to introduce new or improved ideas and techniques or general information regarding product availability and preparation to the general membership.b. In its effort to keep its membership informed of activities and to provide a written educational forum, ten months each year the mca produces and distributes a newsletter, the Michigan chefs, which is mailed to all members.

What it reported doing in 2025

Apprenticeships. In recognition of the need for skilled "cook craft" workers in the food service industry, through its sister organization, Michigan culinary association, inc., the mca is program administrator for a u.s. Department of labor approved apprenticeship program which provides formal training according to nationally recognized standards in the preparation and service of food and beverages. The trainings success and student progress are based on 6,000 hours of on the job training under a supervising chef, training through competency based work objectives, and the completion of standardized educational objectives in theory-related courses at a post-secondary institution.it is the intent of the mca to provide, through systematic training, for the development of competent, fully skilled workers and to assure opportunities without regard to their sex, race, color, national origin, or religion, and that all aspects of the training program will be conducted in a nondiscriminatory manner. Upon completion of the program apprentice chefs are granted certification by the Michigan culinary federation as certified cooks. There are also six/seven additional certifications available to be earned from the national organization. This activity furthers our exempt purpose because, through the educational process, it directly meets our goals of encouraging and maintaining high technical culinary arts standards in the preparation and service of food beverages.costs for the program include registering apprentices with the american culinary federation educational institute, payment of inspectors who visit apprentices on the job, publication notices of the availability of apprenticeships (including non-discrimination policy statements), apprentice tests and diplomas for graduates.

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: 67
  • Growth: 60

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: 21.7%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 49th 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 · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 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.

  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.