American Association of University Professors University of Cincinnati
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 310865346
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Cincinnati, OH, USA
- Phone
- 5135566861
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $905,030
- Expenses
- $902,717
- Assets
- $1,261,763
- Liabilities
- $25,066
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEVE MOCKABEE (PRESIDENT)
- CHRIS CAMPAGNA (VICE PRESIDENT)
- ERIC PALMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- ERIC PALMER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $194,163 total reported compensation
- JEFF CRAMERDING (CONTRACT ADMIN DIRECTOR): $147,584 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 purpose of this organization shall be those of the association as stated in article i of the association's constitution: " . . . To facilitate a more effective cooperation among teachers and research scholars in universities and colleges, and in professional schools of similar grade, for the promotion of the interests of higher education and research, and in general to increase the usefulness and advance the standards, ideals and welfare of the profession, and to serve as the collective bargaining agent for faculty and librarians at the university.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization is set up to advance the standards, ideas and welfare of higher education. We act as bargaining agent in order to represent universities' professors. Contributions are collected to help fund higher education by providing funds to needy students.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 65% for direct work, and 35% for affiliated organizations.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 71
- Transparency & Controls: 60
- Accountability: 68
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
- Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 80
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- 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: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.3%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 37.9%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 26.5% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $726K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $194K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.