ACPA–College Student Educators International

Legal name: American College Personnel Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521170366
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2025
Official website data refreshed
Jul 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2028352272
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,223,940
Expenses
$2,495,014
Assets
$1,823,684
Liabilities
$1,151,541

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHRISTOPHER MOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • PATRICIA FECHTER GATES (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JONATHAN MCELDERRY (President)
  • KELVIN RUTLEDGE (PRESIDENT-ELECT)

Highest reported compensation

  • CHRISTOPHER MOODY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $288,671 total reported compensation
  • PATRICIA FECHTER GATES (DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $198,540 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

ACPA transforms higher education by creating and sharing influential scholarship, shaping critically reflective practice, and advocating for equitable and inclusive learning environments.

What it reported doing in 2025

During the year, six issues of the journal of college student development, five issues of about campus and four issues of acpa developments were issued to distribute information of interest to members of the assoication.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 74
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 78.2%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.2%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.63; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.5%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -4% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -1.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86% of revenue deployed · 78.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 32 of 32 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $289K · 34 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2025
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.