Iron Workers Local 58 Vacation Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
463607743
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Phone
5049436663
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,000
Expenses
$7,557
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

People named in this filing

  • HERMAN ADAMS (TRUSTEE)
  • MARVIN RAGSDALE (TRUSTEE)

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

The objective of the fund is to provide vacation benefits for eligible employees and beneficiaries to the extent the funds are available for such purposes under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.

What it reported doing in 2019

To pay and provide for the sound and efficient operation of the fund, including but not limited to, payment of all reasonable and necessary expenses that may be incurred by the trustees in connection with the establishment of the fund, the employment of such administrative, investigative, legal, expert, and clerical assistance, the leasing of such premises and the purchase or lease of such materials and equipment as the trustees, in their discretion, find necessary or appropriate in the performance of their duties, and the payment of all reasonable and necessary expenses of collecting employer contributions.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 24.4%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -27.4% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -35.3% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -42.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.6% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 2 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2013 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.