Michigan Security Industry Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
262384496
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2011
Forms available
Form 990 2011
Location
Royal Oak, MI, USA
Phone
2487012574
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Business and Industry

Reported finances

Revenue
$325,097
Expenses
$343,820
Assets
$5,227
Liabilities
$1

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2011. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

TO PROTECT, PROMOTE AND FOSTER THE INTEREST OF THE MEMBERS AS PARTIES WITH AN INTEREST IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY INDUSTRY IN MICHIGAN.To serve as a platform to accelerate technology development, investment and job growth for the state in the fast-growing homeland security sector.To serve as an advisor for entrepreneurs and established businesses to encourage commercialization of technology in cybersecurity, biodefense and border security and provide a platform to support homeland security decision makers.To provide strategies, networks and expertise, in addition to facilitating infrastructure and capital investments, to accelerate the growth of homeland security business in the state.

What it reported doing in 2011

Border Program: Consistent with MiSNs continued focus on establishing Michigan as the site for a Northern Border Security Technology Test Bed, we have prepared an appropriation request of $2 million for the FY12 budget cycle. This request would provide the funds for MiSN to carry out a detailed analysis of areas and facilities in which to locate a Northern Security Test Bed. To further strengthen Michigans bid to establish a Nothern Border Security Test Bed, MiSN has secured the backing of the presidents of major border asset companies. Within the context of this project, they have offered up their facilities as operational beta test sites. The direct and indirect activity of establishing a Northern Border Security Test Bed in Michigan would ultimately create thousands of jobs and establish our area as a national leader in this field.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 71% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 84
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 52.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $180K · 8 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.