Mechanical Industries Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
580942679
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Norcross, GA, USA
Phone
7709341427
Rating
49
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,170,980
Expenses
$988,939
Assets
$678,547
Liabilities
$153,852

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

People named in this filing

  • JIM C THOMAS (CHAIRMAN)
  • JOHN MCKENNEY (TREASURER)
  • STEVE LISENBY (TRUSTEE)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The fund shall be used to protect, promote, foster and advance the interests of employers and employees engaged in the mechanical contracting and servicing industry (the "industry") in the following manner: a) to engage in public relations programs designed to create a better public understanding of the industry and to encourage greater use of the industry's services by owners and construction and service purchasers for the benefit of the general public. B) to cooperate with public officials and representatives of other organizations on all matters of mutual interest affecting the industry. C) to foster and promote better employer/employee relationships and to strive for optimum efficiency and workmanship in construction methods. D) to foster and provide for the education and training of supervisory and managerial personnel. E) to promote research and experimentation concerned with improving existing construction methods and developing, testing and promoting new construction materials

What it reported doing in 2025

Georgia/Florida national certified pipe welding bureau was established to do collectively what it is difficult for many firms to do individually. The bureau provides a means, recognized by the national codes and standards, to provide quality welding for an economical price.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 90
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 40

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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.5%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.69; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 14 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.