Downtown Muskegon Now

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383603266
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Muskegon, MI, USA
Phone
2317243180
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Reported finances

Revenue
$44,204
Expenses
$170,625
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDY MACIEJEWSKI (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVE ALEXANDER (EXECUTIVE DI): $34,471 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promotion, social welfare and education in connection with the development and promotion of the downtown muskegon community based on the preservation of historic structures, business development, arts, music and other entertainment events within the charitable purposes set forth in section 501(c)3 of the internal revenue code.

What it reported doing in 2019

Downtown promotion - taste of muskegon - more than 25,000 individuals attended this two day food and music event in june which included nearly 30 local restaurants from the greater muskegon community. The taste of muskegon - founded by downtown muskegon now but continued by the city of muskegon - helps to showcase downtown and supports local business and local music artists. Holidays in the city - several thousand individuals and more than a dozen downtown merchants and restaurants participate in this annual free event every november. The annual event has grown into a true community affair that encourages individuals to shop at downtown muskegon's locally owned merchants. The event also includes a holiday tree lighting event in hackley park, chorales and other holiday festivities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 85% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 89
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 5
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 88.3%; rating input score 88; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -286%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: Limited

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.6% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $168K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $34K · 16 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 9/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.