Retread Tire Association
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 274145906
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2015
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Pacific Grove, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8316205345
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Professional Societies, Associations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $84,116
- Expenses
- $79,478
- Assets
- $17,449
- Liabilities
- $1,070
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- HARVEY BRODSKY (CEO/MNG DIR)
People named in this filing
- HARVEY BRODSKY (CEO/MNG DIR)
- RONA HALPERN PhD (Secretary)
- JACK WOODLAND (Director)
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 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the environmental and economic benefits of top quality retreaded tires and proper tire repairing, and to counter unwarranted negative mentions about retreading regardless of where the mentions are found anywhere in the world.
What it reported doing in 2015
800 RTA news releases and NEWS YOU CAN USE memos were distributed to more than 350 readers worldwide; more than 2000 various memos to RTA worldwide, attended several tire related conferences as a featured speaker in three countries, participated as a featured speaker in more than 10 radio segments about top quality retreading and proper tire repairing on both Satellite and AM radio stations, replied to over 2000 email and telephone inquiries requesting information about retreading and tire repairing, successfully rebutted a number of negative mentions about retreading in the media (Newspapers, Radio, TV), wrote 15 articles about the economic and environmental benefits of top quality retreading and proper tire repairing for various tire and trucking magazines.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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: 35
- Growth: 40
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: 5.5%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2011 to 2015
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- 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 — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 17/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.