National Academy of Construction
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 134360833
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Austin, TX, USA
- Phone
- 5124715084
- Rating
- 65
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Business and Industry
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,306,918
- Expenses
- $1,297,733
- Assets
- $1,455,660
- Liabilities
- $22,278
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- GEORGE EDWARD GIBSON JR (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- GEORGE EDWARD GIBSON JR (PRESIDENT & CEO): $412,160 total reported compensation
- SANDRA PITTMAN (SECRETARY): $97,174 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the national academy of construction is recognize and honor those who have made outstanding, life-long contributions to the construction industry. In addition, the academy provides its leadership and expertise to a variety of organizations, governmental and nongovernmental, to help transform the industry, fostering collaboration, future improvement, and building the next generation of leaders.
What it reported doing in 2025
The national academy of construction conducts one in-person annual meeting per year and during that meeting inducts and honors new members, holds a member business meeting, facilitates face to face committee meetings and runs a fundraising event. It conducts its other business during the year through virtual, member-led teams that create publications, podcasts and hold workshops that share expertise and experience with the broader construction industry and higher education.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 57
- Sustainability: 36
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 73%; rating input score 73
- Program expense ratio: 73.5%; rating input score 74
- Fundraising efficiency: $5.16 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: 97.9%; rating input score 98; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.7%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 39.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.1% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 73% of revenue deployed · 73.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 2 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $954K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $412K · 10 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $563K reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 17/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 33/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 56/100.