Saginaw Plumbing and Pipefitting 85 Joint Apprenticeship Committee
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 382085532
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Saginaw, MI, USA
- Phone
- 9897995261
- Rating
- 56
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,734,797
- Expenses
- $1,924,512
- Assets
- $8,141,688
- Liabilities
- $156,465
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- JUSTIN POMERVILLE (TRUSTEE): $286,356 total reported compensation
- RONALD STEELE (TRUSTEE): $207,955 total reported compensation
- ROBERT ANDERSON (TRUSTEE): $207,948 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The saginaw plumbers and pipefitters local 85 joint apprenticeship committee is crafted to provide training to apprentice and journeymen members under a collectively bargained agreement, on behalf of the saginaw plumbers and pipefitters u.a. Local no. 85, in compliance with the taft- hartley act.
What it reported doing in 2025
The saginaw plumbers and pipefitters local 85 joint apprenticeship committee is crafted to provide training to apprentice and journeymen members under a collectively bargained aggreement, on behalf of the saginaw plumbers and pipefitters u.a. Local no. 85, in compliance with the taft- hartley act.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 85% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for member benefits.
The verdict
MIXED - Most filed governance safeguards are in place and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 42
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 71
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 27%; rating input score 27
- Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th 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: 50%; rating input score 50; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 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: Limited
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 66.4%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.23; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 27% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 6 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $286K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $243K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Related organizations: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 27/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.