Quincy Mine Hoist Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
381788908
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Hancock, MI, USA
Phone
9064825569
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Historical Societies, Related Historical Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,194,925
Expenses
$703,999
Assets
$4,700,365
Liabilities
$484,643

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GLENN ANDERSON (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS WRIGHT (MANAGER): $67,847 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Preserve and interpret the history, landscapes, buildings, and industrial work experiences of the quincy mining company, educating the public about Michigan's copper mining heritage.

What it reported doing in 2024

History museum programs, general/other- building on a 60 year heritage of cultural resource convervation, the quincy mine hoist association hosted approximately 22,000 visitors to the buildings and landscape of the industrial copper mine site that comprises the core of the quincy mine national historic landmark district. Many of these visitors took the cograil tram to the entrance of the mine hence almost one-half mile into the seventh level of the mine. There, mining techniques and diggings from just prior to the civil war are experienced through the help of an interpretive guide.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 77
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.3%; rating input score 53
  • Program expense ratio: 83.6%; rating input score 84
  • 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; 63rd 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: 41.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.68; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.6%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 23% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.3% of revenue deployed · 83.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $589K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $68K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 53/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.