The Mechanical Contracting Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521646891
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
3018695800
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,419,522
Expenses
$836,551
Assets
$16,470,558
Liabilities
$76,966

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN HELM (PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN HUGHES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SEAN MCGUIRE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • BRIAN HELM (PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN HUGHES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PARTHIV AMIN (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The john r. Gentille foundation (jrgf) articulates and funds the mechanical contracting industry's most critical human resource and research needs. Jrgf cultivates and supports activities that allow professionals in the mechanical contracting (continued on schedule o) industry to succeed in their businesses.

What it reported doing in 2024

Research the john r gentille foundation (jrgf) is dedicated to the advancement and growth of the mechanical construction industry through the pursuit of research, innovation, and education. Our primary purpose is to enhance industry knowledge, develop future leaders, and drive industry-wide growth through rigorous research and investigation. Jrgf is committed to pioneering best practices, improving efficiency, and ensuring sustainability within the industry. We aim to foster understanding and engagement among stakeholders, contributing to a thriving, responsible, and future-focused mechanical construction industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 89% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Program spending has declined or grown slowly and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 72
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 88
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82.5%; rating input score 83
  • Program expense ratio: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 41.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 19.69; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82.5% of revenue deployed · 77.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $646K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.