Operative Plasterers Local Union No 66 Jatc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
942710150
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
South San Francisco, CA, USA
Phone
6508728922
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$344,691
Expenses
$289,249
Assets
$104,434
Liabilities
$11,843

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BOB NOTO (COORDINATOR): $77,346 total reported compensation
  • ISAURO ARREOLA (TRUSTEE): $525 total reported compensation
  • STEVE MORAN (TRUSTEE): $175 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The operative plasterers union local no 66 journeymen and apprentice training trust fund was established to provide training for members. The training relates to skills necessary to perform jobs covered by the collective bargaining agreements and includes all phases of work in the plastering industry

What it reported doing in 2013

Provide education and training to apprentices in the plastering industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 68% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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: 90
  • Accountability: 47
  • Sustainability: 48
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 71.4%; rating input score 71; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.1%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.36; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 53% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 84% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 5 of 7 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 7 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 11 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2012 to 2013
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.