American Association of University Professors

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
800320904
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2027375900
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,180,905
Expenses
$12,897,175
Assets
$16,936,784
Liabilities
$6,793,598

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

Leadership & pay

24 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PAUL DAVIS (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT)
  • TODD WOLFSON (PRESIDENT)
  • ROTUA LUMBANTOBING (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • IRENE MULVEY (FORMER PRESIDENT)
  • AARON NISENSON (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • NANCY LONG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • NANCY LONG (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $309,138 total reported compensation
  • MARK BOSTIC (DIRECTOR OF ORGANIZING): $260,586 total reported compensation
  • AARON NISENSON (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $249,079 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 american association of university professors facilitates more effective cooperation among teachers and research scholars in universities and colleges, and in professional schools of similar grade, for the promotion of the interest of higher education and research, and in general to increase the usefulness and advance the standards, ideals and welfare of the profession.

What it reported doing in 2024

Policy and legal advocacythe policy and legal advocacy program promotes principles of academic freedom, shared governance, and due process in higher education through the development of policy documents and reports; and application of these principles to particular situations, in the form of casework and investigations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 85% 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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 0th 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 60.3%; rating input score 60; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -5.9%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.31; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.4; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 15.5% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $309K · 24 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 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: 27 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 37/100.