AEG Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943168991
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chico, CA, US
Phone
530-433-1499
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Science and Technology N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$298,573
Expenses
$178,983
Assets
$1,321,502
Liabilities
$2,908

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DUANE KREUGER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANNA SAINDON (PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • DUANE KREUGER (PRESIDENT)
  • ANNA SAINDON (PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ROZ MUNRO (SECRETARY)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The AEG Foundation's vision is to create a culture of giving back to the profession, and to instill complete confidence in donors that their money is well-invested and well-spent. Our core programs emphasize scholarship, research, and professional development to improve professional practice. We support outreach to increase the public's appreciation of environmental and engineering geology in geo-hazard evaluation and risk reduction.

What it reported doing in 2024

The aeg foundation was established by three past presidents of the association of environmental and engineering geologists aeg as an independent organization in 1992. The aeg foundations vision is to develop programs that aid our profession encourage those that receive direct aid and, install donors confidence that their funds both support fine programs and are well-invested. Our core programs emphasize scholarship, research and professional development to improve professional practice in the short and long terms. We support outreach to increase the publics appreciation of environmental and engineering geology in geohazard evalution, risk reduction, our sustainable use of resources and proper disposal of wastes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 64% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 52
  • Transparency & Controls: 74
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.9%; rating input score 47
  • Program expense ratio: 53.5%; rating input score 53
  • Fundraising efficiency: $56.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 34.7%; rating input score 35; 40th 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 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 40.1%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.38; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 46.9% of revenue deployed · 53.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $96K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 47/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 35/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Audit committee oversight not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.