Plumbers Local 690 Communications and Productivity Fund
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 994595434
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA, USA
- Phone
- 2156776900
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $63,100
- Expenses
- $539
- Assets
- $122,806
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- GEORGE C PEGRAM (TRUSTEE)
- JAMES DOUGHERTY (TRUSTEE)
- THOMAS P GOLDEN (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-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The proceeds of this trust will be used solely to pay the operating costs of the fund, which shall be exclusively limited to the following purposes: a. To improve communications between representatives of labor and management; b. To provide a mechanism to improve the collective bargaining relationship between the parties with respect to matters of mutual concern; c. To study and explore ways of eliminating potential problems which reduce the competitiveness and inhibit the economic development of the construction industry; d. To engage in public relations and public education programs to promote the mechanical industry; e. To engage in research and development programs concerning various aspects of the construction industry, including, but not limited to, new technologies in construction, occupational safety and health, labor relations, and new methods of improved production;
What it reported doing in 2025
To study and explore ways of eliminating potential problems which reduce the competitiveness and inhibit the economic development of the construction industry.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% 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
- 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: 82
- Sustainability: 91
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 99.1%; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 227.84; rating input score 99; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 68.4% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 7 of 7 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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 — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.