United Academics of Oregon State University

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
852720216
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Corvallis, OR, USA
Phone
5413685345
Rating
51
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$923,966
Expenses
$837,093
Assets
$699,533
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOSEPH OROSCO (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DANIEL ANDERSEN (CO-EXECUTIVE): $108,404 total reported compensation
  • MEGAN DICKISON (CO-EXECUTIVE): $105,404 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of this union shall be: - to secure full trade union rights, including the rights to exclusive recognition and collective bargaining for all employees who are eligible for membership. - to promote the interests of higher education and research, to advance the standards and welfare of the profession. - to defend and promote the principles of shared governance in higher education. - to advance the economic, social, and political well-being of the membership. - to encourage mutual understanding and cooperation among the membership. - to preserve affordable public education for students. - to advocate for the value of higher education employees, to improve the climate for students and higher education employees, and to support the delivery of quality education. - to promote democracy, equality, and labor rights in society at large.

What it reported doing in 2024

The purpose of united academics of Oregon state university is to negotiate for, represent, and support the interest of faculty in the bargaining unit. We collectively bargain with Oregon state university, which occurs every few years. Bargaining is conducted by a panel of university faculty and Oregon state university representatives. Preparing and engaging in collective bargaining consistitutes approximately 50% of the union's activity. Enforcement of the collective bargaining agreement is an ongoing process which takes up 35% of union activity including the elected group of faculty members who serve on the grievance and contract administration committee.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 99% 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: 90
  • Sustainability: 51
  • 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 9.4%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.5%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 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 — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.