Industrial Compressor Distributor Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
311059147
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2012
Location
Saint Louis, MO, USA
Phone
6363991439
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$263,788
Expenses
$260,897
Assets
$92,910
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Elyse Gilliam (Executive Director)
  • Greg Parker (President)
  • Kurt Barhost (Vice President)
  • Joe Kerley (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Elyse Gilliam (Executive Director): $17,500 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 promote the highest standard of production, financial and managerial activities, to provide the vehicle for the solution of industry problems in an effective and efficient manner and to promote the anticipation and awareness and positive reaction to these forces.

What it reported doing in 2024

Each year an annual general membership meeting is held for the purpose of discussing business affairs of the association and to develop programs that are beneficial to the membership and their employees. Industrial Compressor Distributor Association provides its members with a quaterly newsletter, technical engineering handbooks, service training manuals, and other educational materials.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 80% 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: 90
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 40

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.1% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 65 of 65 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $18K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 14 current checks pass · 6 findings to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 31/100.