Construction Management Association of America Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541803080
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Vienna, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7033562622
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $163,271
- Expenses
- $79,773
- Assets
- $1,178,783
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ANDREA RUTLEDGE (PRESIDENT &)
Highest reported compensation
- ANDREA RUTLEDGE (PRESIDENT &): $345,467 total reported compensation
- LAURA SKOFF (VP, OPERATIO): $207,290 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The cmaa foundation advances and supports workforce development to support the future growth of the industry, development of research beneficial to the advancement of technological, educational, or vocational expertise in the industry, and education in the construction management profession.
What it reported doing in 2024
The francis m. Keville scholarship is awarded each year to a female student pursuing a degree in construction management at an institution accredited by a u.s. Regional accrediting agency, who has a record of leadership and engagement both on - and off - campus, and who is planning a career in the field. Cmaa foundation scholarships are awarded to students pursuing a post- secondary education that is intended to lead to a career in construction management. Students must be enrolled at institutions, based in the u.s., that are accredited by a u.s. Regional accrediting agency.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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: 45
- Transparency & Controls: 67
- Accountability: 91
- Sustainability: 80
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 43.1%; rating input score 43
- Program expense ratio: 64.4%; rating input score 64
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th 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: 90.3%; rating input score 90; 52nd 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; 63rd 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: 51.1%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.78; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 72.5%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 43.1% of revenue deployed · 64.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $51K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $345K · 13 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.