Worker Education & Resource Center Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
954888539
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Phone
2136392220
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$4,608,528
Expenses
$4,552,743
Assets
$5,635,030
Liabilities
$705,223

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAVID GREEN (PRESIDENT)
  • JONATHAN FREEDMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • LEONA SMITH DI FAUSTINO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KEMBERLY CARRUTHERS (DIRECTOR OF FINANCE & HUMA): $154,801 total reported compensation
  • LEONA SMITH DI FAUSTINO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,516 total reported compensation
  • WENDY P BARRENO (FORMER DIRECTOR OF GROWTH & INNOV): $76,436 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Worker education and resource center, inc. (werc) is a 501(c)3 non-profit entity that was incorporated in 2002, originally to implement the health care workforce development program (hcwdp), which is a labor/management partnership between the la county department of health services (lacdhs) and the service employees international union local 721 (seiu).the primary purpose of werc is to offer career ladder, skills development, and educational workshops and programs for the frontline workforce that provides healthcare services to los angeles county's most medically vulnerable communities. Werc derives its revenue from cost-reimbursement contracts with the county of los angeles as well as from federal and philanthropic grants.

What it reported doing in 2024

Place (preparing los angeles for county employment), which prepares people with barriers to employment for, and places them in, county jobs resulting in permanent employment and a career pathway. Target populations for place include, among others, individuals receiving county services, people living in economically disadvantaged areas, justice-involved individuals, transitional aged youth, homeless and housing insecure individuals, and underrepresented populations. Participants undergo a screening and selection process, 8-week classroom training, and are paired with a case manager who supports them for at least 9 months.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 82% 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

STRONG - 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 41
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.9%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 91%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Pass
    • 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; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.2%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.9% of revenue deployed · 91% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $155K · 9 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $526K reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 38/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.