Masonry Institute of Michigan Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381856805
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
Location
Livonia, MI, USA
Phone
3132125784
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$391,209
Expenses
$367,370
Assets
$283,935
Liabilities
$50,066

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TODD DAILEY (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • PHILIPPE LEDENT (EXECUTIVE DI): $210,724 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The masonry institute of Michigan inc. Is dedicated to the promotion and advancement of the masonry industry. The institute provides information to the industry and public, indiscriminately. The institute's goal is to promote quality masonry, quality masonry units and materials, functional and efficient designs, and quality workmanship. The objectives of the masonry institute of Michigan are: 1. To provide up-to-date design information to architects and structural engineers. 2.to provide technical masonry data to mason contractors, bricklayers and industry suppliers. 3. To promote the many advantages of masonry construction to the designer, the builder, the owner, and the general public. 4. To promote the highest standards of quality design, quality materials and quality workmanship. 5. To promote productive working relationships between all parties of the masonry industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

The masonry institute of Michigan wants to educate the future generation of mason contractors. They do this through university and college lectures to architectural students. Mim offers a lecture and masonry design course the mim designs and publishes a magazine (the story pole) which keep its members informed of technical information and industry updates.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 87% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 57.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 24 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.