Chicago Area Construction Testing
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 822790458
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Chicago, IL, USA
- Phone
- 7737212200
- Rating
- 59
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $27,930
- Expenses
- $11,135
- Assets
- $109,832
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
3 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- WALTER FLOOD (PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- WALTER FLOOD (PRESIDENT)
- KEN RIPPY (DIRECTOR)
- ROBERT ACKER (DIRECTOR)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Activties of cactdia are focused on (i)improving the organizational effectiveness of chicago area unionized testing companies and the productivity, job security and quality of working life of their employees employed in the territorial jurisdication of international union of operating engineers, local 150 (iuoe 150)(ii)engaging in collective bargaining and negotiantion of labor agreements with iuoe 150 (iii) improving and providing for stable labor relations in unionized segment of the industry (iv)when appropriate, assisting in the settlement of jurisdictional disputes (v) encouraging and supporting the initiation, development and operation of similar employer associations' industry standards and specifications, new technologies and improved production, occupational safety and health, and public education for the industry (vi) protection, promoting and further enhancing the economic development, competitivesness and best interests of the industry; (vii)engaging in such orther activiti
What it reported doing in 2025
Charitable donation
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 39
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 77
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 24.9%; rating input score 25
- Program expense ratio: 62.4%; rating input score 62
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 60.1%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 9.86; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 24.9% of revenue deployed · 62.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $7K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 25/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.