Independent Electrical Contractors Dallas Chapter

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
756043850
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Irving, TX, USA
Phone
9725501133
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,090,471
Expenses
$3,225,173
Assets
$3,996,769
Liabilities
$96,731

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KELLY SMITH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN STEWART (EXECUTIVE DI): $415,344 total reported compensation
  • PAUL LOZOYA (TRAINING DIR): $177,922 total reported compensation
  • ZACKARY JARMON (BUS. DEVELOP): $147,560 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 provide it's members and the electrical industry with information, services, and education to further advance the industry and it's members. The chapter's responsibilities are to maintain a liason between business, organizations and governmental entities, keeping abreast of changes, opportunities, rules and regulations which effect the electrical industry and it's members. The chapter supports a us department of labor approved apprenticeship training program to further provide the electrical industry with trained craftspeople for future growth and maintenance of the electrical trade.

What it reported doing in 2024

The chapter supports a us department of labor approved apprenticeship training program to further provide the electrical industry with trained craftspeople.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 85% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and a relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.3%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 75.2%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Limited
  • 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.2%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.3% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.3% of revenue deployed · 75.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $415K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.