Iron Workers District Council of the Pacific Northwest
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 910863281
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 4257714766
- Rating
- 42
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,227,488
- Expenses
- $1,144,461
- Assets
- $806,462
- Liabilities
- $41,573
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Chris McClain (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Julio Vazquez (Organizer): $221,947 total reported compensation
- Chris McClain (President): $21,336 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 purpose of Iron Workers District Council of the Pacific Northwest is to: create a harmonious feeling between the local unions and to settle all differences arising between them; to create a higher standard and skill; to secure adequate compensation for their work; to cultivate better relations between employers; to assist members to secure employment and protect members by legal and proper methods against injustice; and establish uniform agreements for the betterment of relations with employers.
What it reported doing in 2024
To create a harmonious feeling between the local unions and to settle all differences arising between them; to create a higher standard and skill; to secure adequate compensation for their work; to cultivate better relations between employers; to assist members to secure employment and protect members by legal and proper methods against injustice; and establish uniform agreements for the betterment of relations with employers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 85% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue has grown recently. 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: 58
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 60
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: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 27.7%; rating input score 28; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.8%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -42.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $222K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 14 of 16 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 28/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 32/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 52/100.