The Moles
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 131055612
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Montvale, NJ, USA
- Phone
- 2019301923
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,430,841
- Expenses
- $1,425,609
- Assets
- $1,537,411
- Liabilities
- $708,108
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOHN F MCNAMARA III (PRESIDENT)
- MICHAEL A D'ANNUNZIO (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
- JOHN H O'KEEFE (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
- JACK A CALLAHAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- DAVID E PUZA (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID E PUZA (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $250,000 total reported compensation
- HEIDI TABER (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT): $124,003 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The moles, a fraternal organization of the heavy construction industry, is the most prestigious organization of its kind in the world. Moles members are leaders in their profession who are dedicated to promoting the industry and supporting their colleagues through outreach programs and networking opportunities.
What it reported doing in 2024
Annual spring and fall business meetings to discuss association's business together with industry developments and concerns. Association's publications and publicity to members and various industry organizations. These along with our awards dinner, which is a highly regarded industry function, honors an individual or individuals for outstanding contributions and/or acheivements to the industry.the moles hold an annual summer clambake that brings together industry leaders. They also sponsor student days to expose college students to the construction industry through a tour of active construction projects.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 34
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.3%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 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: Pass
- 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: 0.4%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.08; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 26.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.3% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 566 of 566 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $250K · 10 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.