Pulp Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers and Los Angeles Industry Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237011588
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Rowland Heights, CA, USA
Phone
9494867905
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$800,475
Expenses
$664,810
Assets
$540,762
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Nick Silk (Trustee)
  • Shig Noguchi (Trustee)
  • Michael A Digildo (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. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To Administer A Group Insurance, Hospital, Medical and Surgical Program for the Exclusive Benefit of Employees of the Employers and Their Dependents and Beneficiaries Under a Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Member-benefit provider. The nonprofit used 100% of its reported program spending for member benefits.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 50
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 82%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 98.7%; rating input score 99
  • 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: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.9%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 82% of revenue deployed · 98.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $656K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 13 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • 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.

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: 6 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.