Iupat District Council No 21
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 230377430
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Phone
- 2156777980
- Rating confidence
- Limited
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $17,689,720
- Expenses
- $16,618,926
- Assets
- $29,624,072
- Liabilities
- $836,372
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
18 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KYLE MULDERIG (VICE PRESIDENT)
- WILLIAM KRESZ (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- BERNARD SNYDER JR (BUSINESS MANAGER/SECRETARY-TREASURER): $374,279 total reported compensation
- ROBERT WOOD (BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE): $327,473 total reported compensation
- MICHAEL LAUGHLIN (EXECUTIVE AT LARGE): $322,992 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The objects of iupat district council no. 21 are to organize the unorganized, to establish central representative bodies having jurisdiction in all matters of general interest to the international union's jurisdiction; to bring about harmony and unity between local unions; to establish a minimum rate of wages in the district; to enforce a code of working rules governing hours, wages, and other terms and conditions of employment; and to create a marketplace in which an atmosphere of labor/management cooperation will enhance prosperity to union employers while, at the same time, insuring job security, safety, training and excellent wages and benefits for our members.
What it reported doing in 2025
Maintaining the goals and purposes of member local unions. Services are performed by business representatives and the secretary-treasurer as well as by office personnel. The services cover the jurisdiction of the district council. The goals of district council 21 include fostering means for improvement of working and living standards of the members, bringing about satisfactory contracts with employers, advancing and maintaining better relations between members and employers, and settling disputes and facilitating placement of union members in jobs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 95% 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: 59
- Accountability: 18
- Sustainability: 46
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 52.9%; rating input score 53; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.1%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.78; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 7.8% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 0 of 13 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $374K · 18 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 24 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 7 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 53/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.