Oregon Afl-cio

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
930471981
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032321195
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,588,437
Expenses
$2,071,046
Assets
$3,559,818
Liabilities
$1,678

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GRAHAM TRAINOR (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GRAHAM TRAINOR (PRESIDENT): $213,370 total reported compensation
  • CATHERINE THEISEN (POLITICAL &): $154,086 total reported compensation
  • DAVID R SANDERS (COMMUNICATIO): $139,224 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The primary focus of the Oregon afl-cio (american federation of labor - congress of industrial organizations) is building power for working people. We accomplish this in every facet of our federation's work, especially our four pillar programs which are devoted to organizing new workers; electing leaders and advocating for legislation which supports working people; and engaging with more communities in Oregon and with more organizations outside of the labor movement. Accordingly, the purpose of the organization is the enhancement and education of organized labor and the general public by participating in political and legislative processes, providing scholarships and educational materials, assisting in voter registration and other social and economic development programs.

What it reported doing in 2025

Committee on political education, scholarship and voter registration and education

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 80% 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

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 60
  • Accountability: 59
  • Sustainability: 61
  • 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: 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: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 11
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.72; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.7%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.6% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 34 board members independent · 1 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 8 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.