Michigan Municipal League Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383019434
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Ann Arbor, MI, USA
- Phone
- 7346623246
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Private Grantmaking Foundations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $868,562
- Expenses
- $1,742,231
- Assets
- $1,870,355
- Liabilities
- $145,615
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
20 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Helen Davis Johnson (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Dan Gilmartin (EX-Officio): $502,025 total reported compensation
- Helen Davis Johnson (President): $173,250 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To operate exclusively for charitable, scientific, literary or educational purposes within the meaning of section 501(c)(3), and to organize to work with Michigan communities to support efforts that bring people together and build equitable community wealth.
What it reported doing in 2024
Wilson foundation - develop new programming focused on building municipal capacity and capital supports to identify and implement inclusive economic growth strategies through entrepreneurship and small business growth. To assist the city of hamtramck & the hamtramck school district to develop and long-term plan to redevelop the 26 acre veteran's park stadium district. The work is a significant first step toward the renovation, maintenance, and activation of the park campus, which includes keyworth stadium and the historic hamtramck stadium.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 96% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 70
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 93.5%; rating input score 94; 41st 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -100.6%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.07; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 14.5% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 16.4% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 10 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $502K · 20 people listed · 0 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: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 47/100.