American Society for Engineering Education

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
370730118
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2029461052
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$26,373,548
Expenses
$21,508,711
Assets
$15,139,277
Liabilities
$4,875,205

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Christi Patton-Luks (President)
  • Agnieszka Miguel (President-Elect)
  • Clay Gloster (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Jaime Ulloa (CFO): $183,574 total reported compensation
  • Monique Maddox (CAO): $171,299 total reported compensation
  • Joseph Roy (CIO): $168,427 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) is committed to advancing excellence in engineering education. Its mission is to foster innovation and collaboration among educators, industry, and government to improve the quality of engineering education and research.

What it reported doing in 2024

Fellowshipss - manage dod and nsf fellowship program activities including promotions, processing applications, reviewing applications, making awards, and paying stipends and travel and tuition costs depending on the programs

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 70% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 66
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.2%; rating input score 69
  • Program expense ratio: 84.1%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 9%; rating input score 9; 8th 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.4%; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.7; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -17.6% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -9.8% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -5.1% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 69.2% of revenue deployed · 84.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $18.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 21 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1M reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 36 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 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.
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 9/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization 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 44/100.