Aacn Certification Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510172756
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Aliso Viejo, CA, USA
Phone
9493622000
Rating
47
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$18,426,035
Expenses
$10,667,307
Assets
$64,713,200
Liabilities
$3,554,661

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dana Woods (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dana Woods (Chief Executive Officer): $791,295 total reported compensation
  • Jakki Farr (Chief Financial Officer): $377,453 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

AACN Certification Corporation drives patient health and safety through comprehensive credentialing of acute and critical care nurses, advancing practice consistent with standards of excellence.

What it reported doing in 2024

In addition to our initial exams, nurses are required to be recertified every three years for our certifications (except for the ACNP-AG and ACCNS certification (renewal only) which lasts five years). The nurse maintains certification based on the recertification process which consists of a combination of working with critically ill patients and obtaining continuing education credits (CE's) throughout the term of their certification period. In the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, we had 30,321 nurses recertify one or more of the certifications administered by AACN Certification Corporation. Overall, there are approximately 134,785 active certifications in the combined categories of certification offered by AACN Certification Corporation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 91% of the money available for current operations came from other operating 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: 70
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 88
  • 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; 62nd 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: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 42.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.07; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1.2%; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $791K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $2.7M reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.