Joint Council of Teamsters No 28
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 910275317
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Tukwila, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2064417470
- Rating
- 35
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,864,069
- Expenses
- $1,633,491
- Assets
- $1,696,852
- Liabilities
- $2,882
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Richard D Hicks (President)
- Richard J Ewing (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Richard D Hicks (President): $345,210 total reported compensation
- Gary D Dixon Jr (Trustee): $212,084 total reported compensation
- Chad L Baker (Recording Secre): $199,250 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To assist and aid local unions affiliated with this joint council to secure improved wages, hours, working conditions and other economic advantages through advancement of our standing in the community and in the labor movement through legal and economic means.
What it reported doing in 2025
This Joint Council represents Local Union members in the State of Washington excluding Clark, Cowlitz, Skamania and Wahkiakum Counties and that portion of Pacific County south of a straight line made by extending the north boundary line of Wahkiakum County west to the Pacific Ocean; State of Alaska; that portion of the State of Idaho encompassing that part of Idaho north of a line drawn east and west through the north city limits of Riggins, Idaho and that portion within the State of Oregon that encompasses the cities of Athena, Weston and Milton-Freewater in Umitila County.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 65
- Accountability: 58
- Sustainability: 55
- Growth: 20
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; 15th 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: 80.5%; rating input score 80; 38th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 42.9%; rating input score 43; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 12.4%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.04; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -0.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.1% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 3 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $345K · 7 people listed · 1 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: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 10 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 43/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- 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.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 42/100.