Independent Railway Supervisors Assn International

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
113183739
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Elmont, NY, USA
Phone
3473236854
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,975
Expenses
$50,184
Assets
$191,816
Liabilities
$2,136

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • James Parks (Vice President)
  • Jamie Greene (President)
  • Fabian Saugar (1st Vice President)
  • Dexter Kellam (Vice President)
  • Kenneth Burger (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Marcus Williams (Recording Secretary)
  • Alexander Kral (Trustee)
  • George Rigalos (Trustee)

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

The purpose of this organization is to combine the interests of its members in order to gain representation consistent with that of other railroad and airway employees. To comply with the railway labor-management reporting and disclosure act of 1959 as amended. To guide their financial interests and promote feelings of brotherhood and a spirit of loyalty towards employers and employees. To assist in building up the standard of the railroad supervision to a high level of efficiency, all to the end better service to be given to the public, which will ensure greater returns for both employer and employee alike.

What it reported doing in 2025

Member representation

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.9%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.82; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 10 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.