University of the District of Columbia Faculty Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521212211
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2020
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2022747108
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$134,417
Expenses
$143,153
Assets
$136,529
Liabilities
$113,618

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRENDA BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT END 7-31-20)
  • ALBERT PEARSALL (PRESIDENT BEG 8-1-20)
  • CAROLENE CHARLES (VICE PRESIDENT BEG 8-1-20)
  • WILMER JOHNSON (PRESIDENT END 7-31-20)

Highest reported compensation

  • BRENDA BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT END 7-31-20): $6,970 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The organization serves as the collective bargaining unit for the faculty of the university of the district of columbia

What it reported doing in 2020

Collective bargaining

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 65% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.2%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 54.6%; rating input score 55
  • 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -6.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.95; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.83; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.9%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.2% of revenue deployed · 54.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $78K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $7K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 16 of 16 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 55/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.