Afl-cio Technology Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 871908508
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2021–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2026373913
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Research Institutes and Public Policy Analysis
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,577,551
- Expenses
- $2,983,830
- Assets
- $5,398,953
- Liabilities
- $205,791
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ELIZABETH SHULER (PRESIDENT)
- AMANDA BALLANYTNE (SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL JUN 202)
Highest reported compensation
- ELIZABETH SHULER (PRESIDENT): $428,404 total reported compensation
- FREDRICK REDMOND (TREASURER): $380,489 total reported compensation
- AMANDA BALLANYTNE (SECRETARY/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (UNTIL JUN 202): $250,983 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The institute's mission is to conduct research and education on the role of worker voice in the innovation economy and to ensure the benefits of technology are broadly shared, creating good union jobs in communities across the country, strengthening workplace democracy and equity, and inventing worker protections that meet modern challenges.
What it reported doing in 2024
The afl-cio technology institute conducts research and public eduction on emerging technologies that are reshaping work and advocates for the inclusion of workers in research and development of new technologies and in government decisionmaking about technology- related public policies.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 85
- Transparency & Controls: 65
- Accountability: 23
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
- Fundraising efficiency: $13.57 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
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: 0%; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: -89.1%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.81; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 47.8%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 49.2% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 44% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 2 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $428K · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $140K reported
- Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.