Michigan Construction Workforce Development Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 812056753
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Okemos, MI, USA
- Phone
- 5173477720
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Adult, Continuing Education
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $43,582
- Expenses
- $19,257
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JEFF ARDELEAN (PRESIDENT)
- KEVIN COTTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- TOM MCCURRY (PAST PRESIDENT)
- STEVEN WAALKES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/CEO)
People named in this filing
- JEFF ARDELEAN (PRESIDENT)
- KEVIN COTTER (VICE PRESIDENT)
- DOREEN LANNI (TREASURER)
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 corporation is formed as an educational service to assist in building a qualified workforce for the Michigan construction industry, using the internet, broadcast and digital media, and other resources to link construction industry contractors, educational and training institutions, and workers organizations with prospective employees. The corporation seeks to promote a positive image for Michigan's construction industry to attract, recruit, educate, train and support new workers.
What it reported doing in 2025
Michigan construction workforce development corporation is created to attract potential employees to the Michigan construction industry and ultimately match employees with prospective employers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 94% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 42
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 70
- Sustainability: 50
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 32.3%; rating input score 32
- Program expense ratio: 73.2%; rating input score 73
- 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 55.8%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -33.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -13.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 32.3% of revenue deployed · 73.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $14K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 58/100.