American Federatio of Teachers

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
721345214
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Shreveport, LA, USA
Phone
3184244579
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Affiliation
Christianity

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,839,986
Expenses
$1,789,629
Assets
$109,336
Liabilities
$170,659

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jackie Lansdale (President)
  • Jordan Thomas (Executive Vice President)
  • Bernard Friday (Executive Vice President -Caddo Federation)
  • Edward Foutch (President - Bossier Federation)
  • Gretchen Harris (Vice President Classified - Bossier Federation)
  • Annie McCulloch (Vice President Futures-Caddo Federation)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jackie Lansdale (President): $107,270 total reported compensation
  • Jordan Thomas (Executive Vice President): $89,700 total reported compensation
  • Bernard Friday (Executive Vice President -Caddo Federation): $82,500 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Red River United is a labor union organized to empower teachers and support personnel by establishing a strong collective voice and achieving high professional standards that reflect the value of public education in Bossier, Caddo, DeSoto and Red River Parishes. We promote the welfare of all children through better educational programs in safe schools that have standards of learning and conduct. Collective action is our vehicle of empowerment to obtain professional dignity, to secure salaries that are commensurate with our education and contribution, and to promote a work place climate where there is justice and fairness.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Organization is a 501 c 5 and this part not applicable to the return.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 90
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 60

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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.2%; rating input score 85; 20th 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.06; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1.56; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 27 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $107K · 21 people listed
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

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.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 21/100.