Maine Adult Education Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010482994
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Dover Foxcroft, ME, USA
Phone
2078748155
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Citizens' Housing/Retirement Communities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$179,147
Expenses
$146,857
Assets
$250,858
Liabilities
$14,030

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHIRLEY WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KAYLA SIKORA (President)
  • Lisa Robertson (Past President)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHIRLEY WRIGHT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $44,659 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Foster and Develop Adult Education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fostered adult education activites in the state of Maine. Progrmas included high school completion, literacy family literacy, college transitions, business and skills training and personal enrichment. The assocition maintained a web portal which essentially creates an individual website for each member adult education program in the state of Maine. The associations other programs included promoting communication and networking among members and other Maine educators inclusive of our conference and seminarsadvocating for continuing education opportunities and education lawmakers advocating for the development and improvement of the quality of adult and community education available in Maine promoting and encouraging professional development amoung adult educators providing a limited number of scholarships to individuals and adult education programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 63% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 55
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.6%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 62.9%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.14 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 18%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.71; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 30.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.8% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.6% of revenue deployed · 62.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $92K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $45K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.