Is Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund Legit?
Quick charity verification for Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund (EIN: 111896894)
Verdict: Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund appears trustworthy
85/100Mission Score
$19.5MRevenue
$12.8MAssets
3Red Flags
5Strengths
Red Flags
NTEE code is unknown, limiting understanding of programmatic focus
Lack of detailed functional expense breakdown (program, admin, fundraising) in provided data
Zero officer compensation for an organization of this size is unusual and warrants further inquiry into executive management structure
Strengths
Consistent financial stability with revenues generally exceeding expenses
Strong asset growth over the past decade, from $7,992,940 in 2014 to $10,695,060 in 2023
Excellent transparency in filing history with 13 years of IRS 990 data available
High utilization of funds, with expenses consistently close to revenues (e.g., 2023 expenses $19,566,878 vs. revenue $21,410,820)
No reported officer compensation, indicating very low or non-existent executive salary overhead
Spending Breakdown
How Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund allocates its funds across programs, administration, and fundraising.
95%
Program Spending
Healthy — majority goes to mission
5%
Admin Costs
Reasonable — admin costs in check
0%
Fundraising
Within typical range
How to read this: Well-run charities typically spend 75% or more on programs, keep admin under 25%, and fundraising under 15%. A high program ratio means more of every dollar goes directly to the mission.
How to Interpret This Report
What Red Flags Mean
Red flags are potential warning signs identified by AI analysis of IRS 990 filings. They may indicate issues like declining revenue, high executive pay relative to program spending, lack of transparency, or governance concerns. A single red flag does not necessarily mean an organization is untrustworthy, but multiple flags warrant further investigation before donating.
What Mission Score Measures
The Mission Score (0-100) evaluates how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated purpose. It combines multiple factors: program spending efficiency (how much goes to programs vs. overhead), financial health and sustainability, governance quality, transparency in reporting, and consistency of operations over time. A score of 70+ indicates strong alignment with the organization’s mission.
Using This Data for Donation Decisions
Use this report as one input in your decision. Look at the overall Mission Score for a quick assessment, review red flags and strengths for specific concerns, check the spending breakdown to see where money goes, and compare executive compensation to the organization’s size. Consider viewing the full transparency report for deeper analysis, and always verify tax-exempt status with the IRS before making large donations.
Frequently Asked Questions about Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund
Is Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund a legitimate charity?
Based on AI analysis of IRS 990 filings, Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund (EIN: 111896894) appears trustworthy. Mission Score: 85/100. 3 red flags identified, 5 strengths noted.
Is Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund a good charity to donate to?
Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund has a Mission Score of 85/100. Revenue: $19.5M. Assets: $12.8M. Review the full transparency report for detailed spending breakdown and executive compensation analysis.
What is the EIN for Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund?
The Employer Identification Number (EIN) for Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund is 111896894. This is the unique tax ID assigned by the IRS.
What is a Mission Score?
The Mission Score is a 0-100 rating that measures how effectively a nonprofit fulfills its stated mission. It factors in program spending efficiency, financial transparency, governance practices, and outcome reporting. Scores above 70 indicate strong mission alignment, 40-69 suggest mixed performance, and below 40 signals potential concerns.
How does Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund spend its money?
Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund allocates 95% to programs, 5% to administration, and 0% to fundraising. Healthy nonprofits typically spend 75%+ on programs.
How can I verify Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund's tax-exempt status?
You can verify Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund's tax-exempt status using EIN 111896894 on the IRS Tax Exempt Organization Search (TEOS) at apps.irs.gov/app/eos. You can also request copies of their Form 990 directly from the organization, as they are required by law to provide them upon request.
AI Transparency Report
The Amalgamated Cutter & Retail Food Store Employees Union Welfare Fund demonstrates consistent financial activity, with revenues and expenses generally in the range of $18-26 million over the past decade. The organization consistently reports zero officer compensation, which is a notable aspect of its financial structure. While the NTEE code is unknown, suggesting a potential lack of detailed programmatic classification, the consistent operation as a welfare fund implies a focus on member benefits. The fund has shown growth in assets, increasing from $7,992,940 in 2014 to $10,695,060 in 2023, indicating sound financial management and accumulation of reserves. Liabilities have remained relatively stable, suggesting good control over its financial obligations.
The fund's spending efficiency appears to be high, given that its expenses are consistently close to its revenues, indicating that most incoming funds are disbursed for its stated purpose. For example, in 2023, expenses were $19,566,878 against revenues of $21,410,820, showing a high utilization rate of funds. The absence of officer compensation further suggests that administrative overhead related to executive salaries is non-existent, which is a strong positive for efficiency. However, without a detailed breakdown of program, administrative, and fundraising expenses, a precise assessment of spending efficiency across these categories is challenging.
Transparency is moderate. The availability of 13 years of IRS 990 filings is a strong point, providing a comprehensive financial history. The consistent reporting of zero officer compensation is also a transparent disclosure. However, the lack of an NTEE code and the absence of a detailed functional expense breakdown in the provided data limit the ability to fully understand the allocation of funds between direct program services, administrative costs, and any fundraising efforts. To enhance transparency, the organization could provide more granular detail on its functional expenses.