Manchester Mens Club

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
382381938
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2023–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Manchester, MI, USA
Phone
7346466016
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Men's Service Clubs

Reported finances

Revenue
$54,013
Expenses
$60,010
Assets
$38,975

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Nate Smith (President)
  • Devin Jose (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Jason Lindemann (Secretary)
  • Nate Smith (President)
  • Devin Jose (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 Manchester Men's Club's primary purpose to benefit the community of Manchester through fundraising and donating that money back to youth sporting and educational programs, donating money to other non-profits, and putting on various community events for the entertainment of the community.

What it reported doing in 2025

Donations to various local organizations: Band, Basketball, Emanuel Church, Fire Department Education, Football, Girls Varsity Soccer, Lamb Club, Co-op Preschool, Family Services, Masonic Lodge, Mountain Bike Club, Rabbit Club, Robotics, Sportsman's Club, Steer Club, Swine Club, Wrestling.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 59% for direct work, and 41% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 70
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 31
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 72.7%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 65.1%; rating input score 65

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.1%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.65; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.6% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 19.7% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 23rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 72.7% of revenue deployed · 65.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $39K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 8 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 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.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.