Cpwr the Center for Construction Research and Training
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521172454
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Silver Spring, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3015788500
- Rating
- 85
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Social Science N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $18,723,168
- Expenses
- $18,326,265
- Assets
- $14,919,742
- Liabilities
- $6,104,824
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRIS CAIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- SEAN MCGARVEY (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- CHRIS CAIN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $328,262 total reported compensation
- RICK RINEHART (DEPUTY DIRECTOR): $287,065 total reported compensation
- MARY TARBRAKE (ASSOC. DIR FINANCE/ADMIN): $254,079 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To carry out research, training and other related services in the construction industry, with a focus on occupational safety, health, and working conditions.
What it reported doing in 2024
Niehs hazardous materials worker health and safety training - includes eleven national construction unions involved in training approximately 14,000 members annually. Cpwr and its consortium of building trades unions offer a comprehensive menu of construction safety and health training programs, including osha 500, 30, and 10-hour programs; hazardous waste training and refreshers; confined space training, lead and asbestos training, osha 7600 training and others.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 95% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 61% for direct work, and 39% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 97
- Transparency & Controls: 72
- Accountability: 87
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 96.1%; rating input score 96
- Program expense ratio: 98.1%; rating input score 98
- Fundraising efficiency: $2,773.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 2.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.41; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.3%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 96.1% of revenue deployed · 98.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $18M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $328K · 13 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $262K reported
- Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 24 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 29/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.