Construction & Demolition Recycling Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200513267
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Springfield, IL, USA
Phone
8667584721
Rating
40
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,052,605
Expenses
$1,057,201
Assets
$856,244
Liabilities
$329,548

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • John Thomas (President)
  • Bernard Styer (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Terri Ward (Executive Dir.): $163,350 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The cdra promotes and defends the environmentally sound recycling of construction and demolition (c&d) material through a diverse and unified voice of members committed to sustainability.

What it reported doing in 2024

The construction & demolition recycling association (cdra) promotes and defends the environmentally sound recycling of the more than 325 million tons of recoverable construction and demolition (c&d) materials that are generated in the united states annually. These materials include aggregates such as concrete, asphalt, asphalt shingles, gypsum wallboard, wood and metals. The cdra represents a diverse group ofmember companies and agencies from the many c&d materials recycling disciplines and industry specialties active in the united states and other countries.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 88% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th 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: 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -52.2% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $163K · 20 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $464K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.