Calumet City Fop Lodge Local 1 Rtrmnt Hc Sav Plan C/o Babbitt Municipalities

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
266105447
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
7734272064
Rating
56
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mutual Insurance Company & Associations

Reported finances

Revenue
$348,905
Expenses
$37,678
Assets
$1,282,678
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CALUMET CITY FOP LODGE 1 (TRUSTEE)
  • STATE STREET BANK TRUST (INSTITUTIONAL TRUST)

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 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Post employment health care funding plan

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 71% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 100% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 30
  • Sustainability: 94
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.2%; rating input score 10
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 89.2%; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 34.04; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 52.5% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 27.6% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.2% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $38K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 10 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 10/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.