Michigan Physical Fitness Health and Sports Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383172025
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lansing, MI, USA
Phone
5173477891
Rating
92
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Health Program (Includes General Health and Wellness Promotion Services)

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$19,145,104
Expenses
$19,143,459
Assets
$5,644,568
Liabilities
$3,723,594

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amy Ghannam (President and CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Amy Ghannam (President and CEO): $217,561 total reported compensation
  • Sean Harwood (VP of Finance): $170,808 total reported compensation
  • Marci Scott (VP Programs): $166,387 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 inspire active lifestyles and healthy food choices through education, environmental change, community events, and policy leadership.

What it reported doing in 2024

As a statewide, backbone organization, MFF convenes community partners and leaders to understand the unique challenges individual communities face and collaboratively develops innovative and sustainable approaches that connect resources, remove roadblocks, and build healthier communities. Aligned with this mission, MFF administers Safe Routes to School and the Pedestrian Education Safety Grant, partnerships with the Michigan Department of Transportation. Additionally, inspiring Michiganders of all ages and abilities to be physically active and to participate in community-based events is an important part of the mission. Initiatives include the Iron Belle Trail partnership projects, Walk/Bike to School Days; and the Mackinac Labor Day Bridge Run.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 98% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 95
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.3%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 94.1%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: $1,279.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 6 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.66; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 94.3% of revenue deployed · 94.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $18M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 24 people listed · 6 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $504K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 40 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 35 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.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 32/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 54/100.