Ann Arbor for Public Power

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
863345206
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2020
Location
Ypsilanti, MI, USA
Phone
2312887228
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$85,954
Expenses
$76,779
Assets
$68,704
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Brian Geiringer (Executive Director)
  • Sean Higgins (President)

People named in this filing

  • Brian Geiringer (Executive Director)
  • Lauren Malatesta (Treasurer)
  • Sean Higgins (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Ann Arbor for Public Power advocates for the creation of a municipal electric utility within the city of Ann Arbor. It also educates the community on the benefits of public power, the dangers of climate change, how Ann Arbor is currently contributing towards climate change, and how the city of Ann Arbor and others can reduce their contribution towards climate change.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 95
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • 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: 10.7%; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.89; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 73.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 123.6% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 46.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 46% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $79K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.