International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers
Legal name: International Assn of Bridge Structural Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 430337330
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, D.C., US
- Phone
- 202 383-4800
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $64,534,708
- Expenses
- $62,595,680
- Assets
- $132,381,323
- Liabilities
- $205,368
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
16 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Eric Dean (GENERAL PRESIDENT)
- Kevin Hilton (CEO of IMPACT)
- John Bielak (Executive Director)
- Michael Baker (3rd General Vice President)
- James Gardiner (7th General Vice President)
- David Beard (2nd General Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Eric Dean (GENERAL PRESIDENT): $592,820 total reported compensation
- Kevin Bryenton (Genral Secretary): $553,356 total reported compensation
- James Mahoney (General Treasurer): $545,012 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 International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL-CIO (IW), is a proud trade association whose beginnings go back to the 1890s. The IW represents 120,000 members in North America.
What it reported doing in 2024
Serves as the bargaining representative for laborers in the ironworking industry -- organizes workers, negotiates better wages and benefits, promotes fair labor standards and practices, trains workers to meet employer needs and to advance their own skills, and develops enhancements in workplace safety and efficiency.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 92% 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
- 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: 41
- Accountability: 23
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 6th 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: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 7.7%; rating input score 8; 6th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 10.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 2.2% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.7% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 3 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 0 of 12 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $593K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.8M reported
- Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 21 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 8 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 8/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.