National Association of Agricultural Educators Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 470467139
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Lexington, KY, USA
- Phone
- 8599672892
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Agricultural Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,742,084
- Expenses
- $2,273,893
- Assets
- $2,081,243
- Liabilities
- $756,261
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
11 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CAMERON DALE (PRESIDENT)
- KYLE STAPLETON (PRESIDENT ELECT)
- WILLIAM A NEWSOM (PAST PRESIDENT)
- ALISSA SMITH (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)
Highest reported compensation
- ALISSA SMITH (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $188,674 total reported compensation
- WM JAY JACKMAN (CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER): $67,887 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 assume and maintain national leadership in the promotion and furtherance of all levels of agricultural education; to bring together agriculture teachers through membership in a national association devoted exclusively to their interests; to provide an oportunity for agriculture teachers to discuss problems affecting agricultural education on a national level; to serve state or local associations of agricultural teachers in the solution of problems which may arise; to cooperate with the association for career and technical education in furthering the cause of career and technical education; to cooperate with education entities in furthering the mission of agricultural education in order to provide a dynamic education system.
What it reported doing in 2025
The association is a membership organization designed to further agricultural education by providing a forum for members to discuss interests and concerns of the agricultural industry.
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 98% 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. 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: 55
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 61.3%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 61.6%; rating input score 62
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
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; 75th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 17.1%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.92; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.36; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.3%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 24th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 61.3% of revenue deployed · 61.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $189K · 11 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 34 of 34 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2012 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 31/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 30/100.