Steelworkers Charitable and Educational Organization

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830400973
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4125622400
Rating
61
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,376,297
Expenses
$5,516,190
Assets
$2,806,462
Liabilities
$484,679

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID R MCCALL (PRESIDENT)
  • KEVIN J MAPP (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EMIL A RAMIREZ (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID R MCCALL (PRESIDENT): $306,477 total reported compensation
  • JOHN E SHINN (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $265,410 total reported compensation
  • EMIL A RAMIREZ (VICE PRESIDENT): $254,485 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Steelworkers charitable and educational organization was organized to advance, promote and support the charitable and educational activities of the united steelworkers (the "usw"), provide assistance in cases of natural disaster or other large scale emergencies to those who are members of the usw, afl-cio and their families and other working families, promote and defend human and civil rights and work for the elimination of prejudice and discrimination in general and among members of the usw, and promote and strengthen the educational opportunities for members of the usw and their families.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization provides employer management training through two separate programs. The programs are:1) the triangle prevention program (top) is an employer funded joint labor management training program that seeks to fulfill the principles of an integrated training site as promoted by the organization. There is an established per/person training cost associated with the program that is paid by employers to participate in the program. All costs associated with the development, implementation and maintenance of the program are covered by these fees. See schedule o for continuationadditionally, the income from these sites is covered by the niehs rules for program income for those funds collected beyond the immediate incurred costs of the program. These additional funds are utilized to carry out additional trainings according to those approved by the niehs. 2) the osha hands on training program is an employer training program funded joint labor management training program that seeks to fulfill the training requirements of osha outreach training for workers and their supervisors. This training is considered related trainings approved by the niehs pursuant to the grant agreement. There is an establsihed per/person training cost associated with the program that is paid by employers to participate in the course. All costs associated with the development, promotion, implementation, and maintenance of the courses is covered by these fees. Additionally, the income from these courses is covered by the niehs rules for program income for those funds collected beyond the immediate incurred costs of the program. These additional funds are utilized to carry out additional trainings according to those approved by the niehs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 86% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 32
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 87%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 84.8%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.51; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.17; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 87% of revenue deployed · 84.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 4 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $306K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $320K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 25 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.