Michigan Regional Council of Carpenters Community Service Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383351974
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Detroit, MI, USA
Phone
3138323887
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Reported finances

Revenue
$754,490
Expenses
$390,031
Assets
$438,386
Liabilities
$19,363

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS LUTZ (CHAIRMAN): $370,113 total reported compensation
  • MICHAEL BARNWELL (SECRETARY): $318,592 total reported compensation
  • RICH WILLIAMSON (TREASURER): $249,029 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 perform charitable and educational works in the state of Michigan, on behalf of the Michigan regional counil of carpenters, by assisting underprivileged individuals and families during the holiday season or faced with a traumatic event, as well as any other charitable function permitted by section 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code of 1986, as amended.

What it reported doing in 2024

To perform charitable and educational works in the state of Michigan, on behalf of the Michigan regional council of carpenters, by assisting underprivileged individuals and families during the holiday season or faced with a traumatic event.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 31
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 50.5%; rating input score 51
  • Program expense ratio: 99.5%; rating input score 99
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 48.3%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 86.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.8% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 50.5% of revenue deployed · 99.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $388K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $370K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.