American Federation of Teachers #527

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
720721653
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New Orleans, LA, USA
Phone
5043042160
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$663,558
Expenses
$617,452
Assets
$614,669
Liabilities
$428,146

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Cash (President)
  • Erika Otero (Vice President of Political Action/Education)
  • Amber Celestine (Executive Vice President)
  • Kate Kokontis (Vice President of Professional Development)
  • Jacqueline James (Vice President for Membership)
  • Mia Rotondo (Vice President of Community Engagement)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Cash (President): $25,833 total reported compensation
  • Alorea Gilyot (Secretary-Treasurer): $4,800 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To protect the rights of its members and advance their interests and welfare; to promote professional excellence among educators; to encourage the hiring and retention of competent teachers and other educational workers; and the maintenance and promotion of modern well-equipped schools and education programs in the New Orleans public and charter schools; to promote the welfare of students; to fight all forms of bias in education

What it reported doing in 2024

Staff representatives/lawyers represent members before the employers. This involves handling grievances and other employee concerns. The intent is to protect employee rights and dignity. Staff representatives also meet with members site by site over the school year to determine what issues concern them.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 99% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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

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: 64
  • Sustainability: 46
  • 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: 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: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 6.9%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.7; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -9.9% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $26K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.