Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 29

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
480413828
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Wichita, KS, USA
Phone
3169414311
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$904,940
Expenses
$887,237
Assets
$1,317,462
Liabilities
$208,865

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDREW SCHRADER (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JEFF TOWNSEND (FIN SEC/BUS): $146,172 total reported compensation
  • MIKE WOLKE (VICE PRESIDE): $95,338 total reported compensation
  • MARCUS CURRAN (EXECUTIVE BO): $35,479 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The union's purpose includes negotiating fair wages, safe working conditions, job protection, and education of its members. Membership consists of journeymen and apprentices of the sheet metal trades.

What it reported doing in 2025

The union allocates a portion of assessments to an equality fund. The funds are allocated to allow union contractors to bid against non-union contractors as a supplement to provide a more competitive bid for the union contract bidder. Bids are allotted at a pre-determined amount based on the job and time that is calculated for the bid. The board approves each supplement for a pre-determined rate per member hour worked on the job. Time sheets are turned into the union and the board approves the payment to contractors based on the amount that was approved per hour for a particular bid. This is generally reserved for significant jobs where non-union contractors bid alongside union contractors. This program keeps in mind the mission of the union to provide fair wages and job protection.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 73% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 67
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 77.1%; rating input score 77
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.48; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75.4% of revenue deployed · 77.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $685K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $146K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 33 of 33 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.