Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
510243571
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4103477721
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Higher Education Institutions

Reported finances

Revenue
$16,163,202
Expenses
$15,358,178
Assets
$31,648,026
Liabilities
$9,825,886

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

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SARAH RAJALA (PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA DIETSCHE (PRESIDENT-ELECT)
  • HAMID FONOONI (PAST PRESIDENT)
  • MICHAEL MILLIGAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHAEL MILLIGAN (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $579,627 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA SILWICK (CFO, COO): $356,145 total reported compensation
  • JANE EMMET (SR DIR, ACCREDITAITON): $237,568 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Abet serves the public through the promotion and advancement of education in applied natural science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology.

What it reported doing in 2024

Society accreditation activities administration - abet facilitates the discussions (through meetings and communications) among the member societies which are represented on the abet board of delegates, implements the resulting changes in policies and procedures as reached by a consensus of the society representatives, and ensures compliance with changes. Abet also provides training, systems and web tools to assist the staff and volunteers of the member societies in the fulfillment of their own accreditation activities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% 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: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 43
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 50
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.5%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 92.9%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.2%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.5% of revenue deployed · 92.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $14.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $580K · 20 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $686K reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 31 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 8 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: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 45/100.