American Federation of Teachers University Council - AFT
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 941743939
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Goleta, CA, USA
- Phone
- 8056890645
- Rating
- 30
- Verdict
- REVIEW
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,719,908
- Expenses
- $3,479,713
- Assets
- $1,651,739
- Liabilities
- $249,539
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
9 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- William Quirk (Executive Director)
- Katherine Rodger (President)
- Iris Ruiz (Vice President)
- Joshua Brahinsky (Vice President)
- John Branstetter (Vice President)
- Kendra Levine (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- William Quirk (Executive Director): $153,188 total reported compensation
- Katherine Rodger (President): $18,000 total reported compensation
- Iris Ruiz (Vice President): $18,000 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 promote and defend the highest standards of education at the University of California and to make that education available to the people of California without respect to race, sex, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, ethnicity, nationality, political belief or economic status. To assure the fullest participation by employees (particularly librarians and non-Senate Faculty) in determination of conditions of employment that affect them.
What it reported doing in 2024
Collective bargaining representation for two groups of University of California academic employees: approximately 350 librarians and 5,000 non-Senate faculty. Includes negotiating labor contracts for both groups of employees.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 87% 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
REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue has grown recently. 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: 66
- Accountability: 28
- Sustainability: 41
- 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: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 6.5%; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.2%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 9 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $123K reported
- Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
- 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 55/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 50/100.