Trade Task Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911271882
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
Phone
2066222730
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$900,419
Expenses
$900,419
Assets
$194,294
Liabilities
$194,294

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • August Fromuth (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Holbert (Secretary): $171,501 total reported compensation
  • Patrick Meuleman (Associate Secretary): $144,861 total reported compensation
  • David Leroy (Director): $2,000 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 Provide trade adjustment assistance

What it reported doing in 2024

Trade Task Group's objective is to seek out those manufacturing and agriculture firms within its four state operating area that are adversely affected by foreign imports. To assist these firms in the preparation of a request for federal assistance from the Economic Development Administration (EDA) under the trade act of 1974. Upon EDA certification, Trade Task Group works with the firm using a combination of internal professional staff and specialized independent consultants to achieve improved market performance of the import impacted area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 96% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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; 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: 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: 0%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.22; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 36.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 91st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 84.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $762K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $172K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.