International Transport Workers' Federation North America - West Coa

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
472251945
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
2063312134
Rating
42
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$852,206
Expenses
$804,533
Assets
$109,665
Liabilities
$253

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • RYAN BRAZEAU (CHIEF EXECUT): $127,885 total reported compensation
  • JOSHUA D BOBIC (EMPLOYEE): $115,821 total reported compensation
  • ALEXANDER C DONATO (EMPLOYEE): $115,821 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To assist seafarers working on flags of convenience ships with any claims or grievances they might have regarding their working conditions.

What it reported doing in 2025

The international transport workers' federation north america - west coast (itf) inspectors assist seafarers working on flags of convenience ships with any claims or grievances they might have regarding their working conditions. To that end, the organization monitors flags of convenience ships observance of applicable international labor organization, international maritime organization and other international conventions, especially those concerned with safety of ships and seafarers. As an advocate for seafarers, itf north america - west coast also coordinates, subject to national law and in consultation with their union and the international transport workers' federation secretariat, industrial or legal action against ships which do not comply with itf flags of convenience campaign policy. At the ground level, itf north america - west coast inspectors also liaise with port state control inspectors, port chaplains and other individuals and organizations responsible for the physical, spiritual, or moral welfare of seafarers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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. 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: 58
  • Sustainability: 32
  • 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; 63rd 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: 60%; rating input score 60; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.6%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.14; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $128K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.