The Laborers Northwest Regional Organizing Coalition
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 721544974
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Seattle, WA, USA
- Phone
- 2067281282
- Rating
- 46
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $9,005,333
- Expenses
- $8,972,523
- Assets
- $14,108,694
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- Ernesto M Avelar (MARKETING REP): $286,235 total reported compensation
- Dennis Cronin (MARKETING REP): $230,077 total reported compensation
- Miguel Sanchez (MARKETING REP): $217,090 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 northwest regional organizing coalition (nroc) is established and exists to increase union participation in the industries in which the laborers' international union of north america (liuna!) currently represents workers. It is nroc's mission to assist local unions and district councils in the northwest region of liuna! To organize all workers employed in these industries without regard to the worker's gender, race, color, creed or national origin. Nroc's first goal is to find jobs for all members seeking and able to work, and secondly to organize the unorganized workers in the targeted markets. Nroc's purpose is to assist in targeting markets, providing research, strategizing, educating members about organizing, and providing local union staff with help in contacting workers.
What it reported doing in 2025
Regional organizing coalition. To assist member locals in their organizing efforts.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 96% 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: 72
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 42
- 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: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 96.6%; rating input score 97; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 13%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
- Leadership: top reported pay $286K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 25 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 28/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.