Afge Afl-cio Council 083 National Border Patrol Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
866030872
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Edinburg, TX, USA
Phone
9568001884
Rating
26
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,439,777
Expenses
$4,816,906
Assets
$9,887,982
Liabilities
$28,484

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL PEREZ (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JASON ALDRICH (ATTORNEY): $202,400 total reported compensation
  • JULIE LEDESMA (ATTORNEY): $202,400 total reported compensation
  • RODNEY SIPES (ATTORNEY): $202,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The object of this council shall be to promote the general welfare of civilian governmental employees. The council shall strive to promote efficiency in the governmental service, and shall advance plans of improvement to be secured by legislative enactment through cooperation.

What it reported doing in 2025

Negotiation and arbitration - each member is covered by a monthly stipend for any negotiation/arbitration needed by the member. This would include disciplinary actions, representation, adverse actions representation, conditions of employment and violations of contract. In addition, members who have incurred legal expenses due to job situations will also be reimbursed. Training - locals are reimbursed for training expenses and new equipment purchased in order to carry on for the good of the council.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 18
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 3rd 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: 83.7%; rating input score 84; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 11.5%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.05; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 1.1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.9M reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 13 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 31 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 13 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 12/100.