Montana Ironworkers Joint Apprentice Training Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
816034684
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2019
Forms available
Form 990 2019
Location
Pocatello, ID, USA
Phone
2082324873
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$287,466
Expenses
$196,104
Assets
$437,348
Liabilities
$2,175

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • TRAVIS WOOLSEY (COORDINATOR): $35,136 total reported compensation
  • JIM WONNACOTT (E-BOARD TRUS): $17,838 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote employment goals for iron workers by providing training.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 92
  • Accountability: 56
  • Sustainability: 67
  • 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: 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.8%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.23; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 6.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $35K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2010 to 2019
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.