Asphalt Institute Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
471154832
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Lexington, KY, USA
Phone
8592884960
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$777,256
Expenses
$334,553
Assets
$5,498,723
Liabilities
$101,691

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REED RYAN (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • REED RYAN (PRESIDENT): $481,810 total reported compensation
  • DANIELLE STEINBERG (SECRETARY): $233,512 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

See schedule o.

What it reported doing in 2025

Strategic asphalt research (star) symposium - the strategic asphalt research (star) symposium aims to identify long-term strategic research and innovation that will be needed to ensure a robust asphalt industry for generations to come. Events held in 2017 and 2022 assembled a diverse group of individuals to participate in the symposium that allowed discussion and idea sharing around topics such as: human needs/workforce development, environmental sustainability, performance/durability, and economics/infrastructure policy and funding. Ideas generated were prioritized into goals and strategies leading to the creation of symposium reports that seek to identify and build solutions for the betterment of the asphalt binder industry's future. The information contained in these reports serves as a catalyst to identify future research needs and projects.fred m. Fehsenfeld, sr. Catalyst for change initiative fund - this fund promotes the development of initiative compatible research needs statements. The fund supports and promotes innovation in the asphalt industry including public procurement methodology, transportation system designs featuring asphalt pavements, testing methodology enabling performance prediction of asphalt binders and mixtures and research on the human health effects from exposure to asphalt products and mixtures.ergon foundation, inc. Fund - this fund supports research agendas, topics and needs statements that are consistent with the ergon foundation's interest and vision to advance the liquid asphalt binder industry. Sustainability research fund - this fund supports research focused on a pragmatic understanding of markets, velocity of change and the realities of an asphalt binder transition to a net-zero carbon future as the us department of transportation seeks an economy wide net-zero transition by the year 2050. The fund supports research to help understand these important dynamics and their impacts on the future use of asphalt as a construction material. It will also help ensure full understanding of the benefits of a fully recyclable paving system when using asphalt binders. The research is intended to be a major aid in the sustainability education of policy makers, agencies, and customers at all levels. Strategic research program - this program, guided by the aif research committee, focuses on fulfilling research needs statements and proposals that focus on pertinent issues identified by technical industry experts. Outside donors may fund research projects managed by the ai foundation. Research is conducted by qualified research facilities with work and project milestones monitored by the aif research committee. Final reports of research findings are published under the ai foundation's name and made available to the public through public webinars and posts on the organization's website.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 83% 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 - 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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 44
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 49.2%; rating input score 49
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 57%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 16.44; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.8%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.1% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.5% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 49.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $165K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $482K · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 33/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.