Council on Aviation Accreditation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
631079345
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Opelika, AL, USA
Phone
3347489359
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Consumer Protection

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$643,363
Expenses
$571,697
Assets
$176,331
Liabilities
$50,154

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ELIZABETH BJERKE (PRESIDENT)
  • MARK DUSENBURY (VICE PRESIDENT OF ACCREDITATION)

Highest reported compensation

  • ELIZABETH BJERKE (PRESIDENT): $55,000 total reported compensation
  • MARK DUSENBURY (VICE PRESIDENT OF ACCREDITATION): $45,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote and foster excellence in collegiate aviation education by providing a forum for students, faculty, staff and practitioners to share ideas, to enhance the quality of education, and to develop stronger programs and curricula. To influence aviation education policy at all government levels. To provide and nurture the linkage between college aviation education, the aviation industry, and government agencies.

What it reported doing in 2025

Accreditation services provided to institutions in aviation management, aviation maintanence, aviation electronics, aviation studies, flight education, aviation safety science, and air traffic control curricula.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 79% 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 most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 73.2%; rating input score 73
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 11.1%; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.28; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.5%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 73.2% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 41 of 41 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $473K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $55K · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and foreign activity
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.