Acec Research Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521140340
IRS 990 coverage
2021–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023477474
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,826,089
Expenses
$2,104,979
Assets
$2,232,959
Liabilities
$570,386

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LINDA BAUER DARR (BOARD MEMBER(ACEC PRESIDENT &CEO))
  • DAPHNE BRYANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY)

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA BAUER DARR (BOARD MEMBER(ACEC PRESIDENT &CEO)): $1,107,401 total reported compensation
  • DAPHNE BRYANT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR & SECRETARY): $414,543 total reported compensation
  • KERRY GAYLOR (DIRECTOR, PROGRAMS): $184,005 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Acec research institute serve as the leading source of knowledge and thought leadership for creating a more sustainable, safe, secure, and technically advanced built environment. Identify, fund, and provide industry wide research forecasts and trend analysis. Award scholarships to students seeking to enter the engineering industry.

What it reported doing in 2024

Scholarships: acec research institute scholarship programs provide financial assistance to promising engineering students.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 91% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 63% for direct work, and 37% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 90
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 27
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 87.2%; rating input score 87
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.38 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 19th 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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -15.3%; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.06; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.26; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.3%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.8% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.1% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 13 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.1M · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2021 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 27/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.