Intervention & Coiled Tubing Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742921985
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Montgomery, TX, USA
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Business and Industry

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$228,781
Expenses
$228,660
Assets
$460,299
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

39 people listed

People named in this filing

  • DAVID LARIMORE (DIRECTOR)
  • MATT BILLINGHAM (SR CHAIRMAN)
  • TIM RAMSEY (TREASURER)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Enhance communication, gather tech expertise, promote safety, training, competency & accepted practices within the well intervention industry through participating mfg, suppliers, service providers & end-users of coiled tubing, slickline, wireline, hydraulic workover, pumping & assoc tech.

What it reported doing in 2019

Intervention technology award - icotas annual intervention technology award recognizes outstanding technical innovation or application of technology for well intervention. The application of the new intervention technology or technique should demonstrate reduced risk, increased production, improved safety or minimized environmental impact and is open to members as well as non-members. Finalists present to the panel of judges prior to the spe/icota well intervention conference held in the woodlands, Texas. In addition to public recognition during the conference and on the icota website by way of press releases, webinars and videos, the winner will receive the intervention technology award perpetual trophy plus an award to retain.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 49.9%; rating input score 50
  • Program expense ratio: 49.9%; rating input score 50
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.01; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 47% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.9% per year; rating input score 0; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 49.9% of revenue deployed · 49.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 39 of 39 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 5 filed program accomplishments · $114K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 39 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2014 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.