Accreditation Commission for Audiology Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562315445
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2017
Forms available
Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2015
Location
Reston, VA, USA
Phone
2029869500
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$276,028
Expenses
$270,535
Assets
$77,479
Liabilities
$50,000

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DORIS GORDON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DORIS GORDON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & EX-OFFICIO): $136,957 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mission: the mission of the acae is to serve the public by establishing, maintaining and applying standards to ensure the academic quality and continuous improvement of audiology education, reflecting the evolving practice of audiology.primary purpose: the primary purpose of the acae accreditation is to recognize, reinforce and promote high quality performance in aud educational programs through a rigorous verification process. This process will produce evidence that aud programs have prepared graduates who are qualified to be doctoral-level and independent practicing audiologists. Graduates will be at the point-of-entry to the us and international health care systems for the diagnosis and treatment of hearing and balance disorders. The accreditation will assure communities of interest that graduates will be able to function according to the nationals scope of practice, as defined by the profession.

What it reported doing in 2017

Acae educational activities -standards: since updating the accreditation standards in march 2016, the acae board of directors has promoted the new standards to current and prospective programs accredited by acae. In addition, acae has widely disseminated the standards to promote quality audiology education that prepares graduates with sound knowledge, diagnostic, treatment, communication and professional skills, including management and business acumen, to function as autonomous direct care providers. The acae publishes the standards in print and electronic format.clinical education forum: in april 2017, the acae hosted the second annual forum in conjunction with the anow annual conference. The forum addresses the challenges for audiology clinical education and included a panel of speakers representing students, preceptors, and educators. The program also featured a speaker to update educators on the requirements of academic institutions to pay state fees in any states where students are completing clinical experiences. The forum drew a crowd of close to 100 participants who engaged in discussions to help identify strategies to address the challenges and to enhance audiology clinical education. Acae will host the event in subsequent years.publications: acae continued to publish in 2017 articles for the six annual issues of audiology today located in the column, acae corner. Student associations: in 2017, the acae has maintained strong communications with student associations, particularly to educate them about the importance of accreditation and the role of acae. The president of the student academy of audiology participated in the panel presenting at the clinical education forum. The students recognize the high quality of the acae standards and importance of pushing for their educational programs to follow the standards and to seek the most qualified preceptors for their clinical experiences. The acae also recognizes the challenges for students in pursuing clinical placements and has worked collaboratively with students, preceptors, and educators to identify strategies to enhance the process.acae platform: acae continues to improve its web-based integrated platform so that the modules are not only efficient and user-friendly but cutting-edge.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 88
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 28
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.8%; rating input score 90
  • Program expense ratio: 91.6%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

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: No; rating input score 0
  • 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: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.29; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.65; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 50.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.8% of revenue deployed · 91.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $248K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $137K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2012 to 2017
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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.

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.