Saew-lmcc Industry Labor Management Cooperation Trust

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
686052645
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Sacramento, CA, USA
Phone
9165700145
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$21,909,470
Expenses
$18,286,545
Assets
$28,183,056
Liabilities
$1,597

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN TEAGUE (GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS ADVOCATE): $159,086 total reported compensation
  • KEVIN COLEMAN (COMPLIANCE OFFICER): $157,446 total reported compensation
  • TAMARA RAENY (OFFICE ADMIN): $142,981 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To represent promote & enhance the management interest of it's electrical contractor mbrs through labor relations, education, management skills improvement, apprentice & journeyman training, marketing, service, public relations,

What it reported doing in 2024

The sacramento business development fund works to provide workers and employers opportunities to explore new approaches to achieve organizational effectiveness, study ways of eliminating potential problems which reduce the competitiveness and inhibit the economic development of the electrical construction industry and sponsor programs which improve job security and promote the general welfare of the community and industry.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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 most voting board members are independent. 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: 68
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 72
  • 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; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -50.2% per year; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.8% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $159K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $439K reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 7 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.