Agricultural & Applied Economics Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
610705416
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Milwaukee, WI, USA
Phone
4149183190
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Agricultural Programs

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,708,561
Expenses
$1,750,701
Assets
$8,432,151
Liabilities
$199,808

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM BEATTY (PRESIDENT)
  • RODOLFO NAYGA (PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN ROE (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

People named in this filing

  • TIM BEATTY (PRESIDENT)
  • RODOLFO NAYGA (PAST-PRESIDENT)
  • BRIAN ROE (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The association is a professional society committed to furthering knowledge about the economics of agriculture, rural communities, and natural resources.

What it reported doing in 2024

Publications: the american journal of agricultural econcomics (ajae) is the leading journal of agricultural economics. Ajae provides a forum for creative & scholarly work on economics of agriculture and food, natural resources and the environment. Another journal produced by aaea, the applied economic perspective & policy, aims to present high-quality research in a forum that is informative to a broad audience, both inside and outside academia.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 78% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 92% 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

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 57
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 67.5%; rating input score 67
  • Program expense ratio: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -2.5%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.82; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.7% per year; rating input score 100; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 67.5% of revenue deployed · 58.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $711K reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 29/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.