American Federation of Teachers Wv Federation of Teachers 8046

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
550587594
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Charleston, WV, USA
Phone
3043442679
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,287,937
Expenses
$2,384,833
Assets
$1,933,264
Liabilities
$1,635,335

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • KRISTIE SKIDMORE (PRESIDENT)
  • FRED ALBERT (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • KRISTIE SKIDMORE (PRESIDENT): $87,158 total reported compensation
  • FRED ALBERT (PRESIDENT): $57,748 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Improve the lives of members and their families; give voice to their professional, economic, and social aspirations; strengthen the institutions in which we work; bring together members to assist and support one another.

What it reported doing in 2024

Represent members before the employer, including handling grievances and other employee concerns, with the intent to protect employee rights and dignity; meet with members at their workplace throughout the school year to determine their issues and concerns; organize potential members to join the union through work site visits and developing relationships with individuals who wish to become part of the larger voice, join the union, and obtain the tangible benefits of membership; and represent member concerns before the West Virginia legislature.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% 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

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: 94
  • Accountability: 63
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 20

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: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -4.2%; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.81; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.5% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 18 of 20 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $87K · 27 people listed
  • Consistency: 13 of 15 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum 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 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.