International Union of Elevator Constructors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
230725260
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
202-547-9000
Rating confidence
Limited

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$32,194,947
Expenses
$24,819,866
Assets
$71,048,293
Liabilities
$190,771

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

Leadership & pay

46 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • FRANK J CHRISTENSEN (GENERAL PRESIDENT)
  • LEONARD LEGOTTE (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • MIKE FUNK (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • JOSEPH WILLIAMS (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • PATRICK STRAFER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • BRAD BRAVE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • FRANK J CHRISTENSEN (GENERAL PRESIDENT): $656,050 total reported compensation
  • LARRY MCGANN (GENERAL SECRETARY-TREASURE): $614,761 total reported compensation
  • JAMES CHAPMAN III (ASSISTANT GENERAL PRESIDEN): $605,277 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 Union of Elevator Constructors is dedicated to representing the interests of its members in the elevator industry, ensuring safe working conditions, fair wages, and quality training.

What it reported doing in 2024

The exempt purpose is to secure improved wages, hours, working conditions and other economic advantages for its members, and to provide educational advancement and training for officers, employees and members. This is essentially the only program service of the organization and all of the revenues and expenses are considered to be for this purpose.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% 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: 58
  • Accountability: 59
  • Sustainability: 72
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 80.6%; rating input score 81; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 76.9%; rating input score 77; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • 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: 22.9%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.86; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 50.2%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 10 of 13 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $656K · 46 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $2.3M reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 42 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 7 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.