UA Local 467 Apprenticeship And Training Trust For San Mateo County

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
941201260
IRS 990 coverage
2017–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Burlingame, CA, USA
Phone
6506920442
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,801,314
Expenses
$2,743,141
Assets
$3,819,148
Liabilities
$5,782

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Stephan Schnell (Advisor/Training Director): $389,563 total reported compensation
  • Tom Johnson (Curriculum Coordinator): $328,920 total reported compensation
  • Ryan Marr-Wyatt (Labor Trustee): $41,750 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 for the establishment and administration of an Apprenticeship and Training Trust for members of UA Local 467 and other UA Local Unions who are working primarily in the jurisdiction of the UA Local 467. The purposes include educating and training persons in all phases of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry to the end that there shall be an adequate supply of educated and skilled journeymen available for the jurisdiction.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization operates a vocational training school serving construction industry employers and employees. During the year we served approximately 1,000 apprentice and journey-level construction workers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 70% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 83.8%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 85%; 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • 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 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: 2.1%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.39; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 27.7%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 83.8% of revenue deployed · 85% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $390K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 28 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2017 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.