Trimmer Construction Education Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237122569
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025951505
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Job Training
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $368,927
- Expenses
- $544,668
- Assets
- $0
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- MIKE BELLAMAN (DIRECTOR): $819,565 total reported compensation
- JASON R DAISEY (CFO (UNTIL 08/2017)): $231,998 total reported compensation
- TEUTA GENNARO (CFO (AS OF 10/2017)): $198,306 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Trimmer construction education foundation, inc. Funds, based on merit, proposed methods which have the highest impact to attracting, training, and retaining the construction industry workforce.
What it reported doing in 2017
During the year, the foundation provided support to abc for the national craft championship and provided 10 grants to abc chapters and members. Among these grants, the three largest provided support for a new electrical program, a new training center, and a training center expansion.during the 2016 fiscal year, the foundation's management and board of trustees developed and approved a plan to end operations of the foundation. During the year ended december 31, 2017, the foundation distributed restricted funds to appropriate 501(c)(3) organizations that align with the foundation's mission and concluded operations as of january 2018. Operations materially ended as of december 31, 2017.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 58
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 5
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 94.8%; rating input score 95
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 95.5%; rating input score 96; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 25th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 88
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Limited
- 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: -47.6%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 22.2%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -24.6% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.8% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $516K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $820K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 18 of 19 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2012 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 11 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 15 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 1/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.