Engine Technology Forum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
371394262
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Frederick, MD, USA
Phone
3016687230
Rating
44
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,036,046
Expenses
$1,164,493
Assets
$585,818
Liabilities
$277,538

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • ALLEN R SCHAEFFER (EXECUTIVE DI): $448,523 total reported compensation
  • KARA GUNDEL (DIR. PUBLIC): $118,109 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The engine technology forum, inc. Is a non-profit organization whose mission is as follows: - to be the leading voice championing the value, progress, and future importance of internal combustion engines, technologies, vehicles, and equipment as well as the fuels that they use. - to positively influence public and policymaker opinions regarding internal combustion engines and the technologies, vehicles, and equipment they power utilizing sustainable and other fuels and their role in achieving energy, environment, and economic goals. - to contribute to the greater awareness of internal combustion engines, vehicles, equipment, and technology using renewable and other fuels, as valued options for decarbonization of key sectors of the economy. - to work with all stakeholders seeking solutions to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions from freight transport, agriculture, construction, and mining, as well as other industrial and commercial applications. - through public education and outr

What it reported doing in 2025

Policy development - this program category was used for activities such as policymaker education, policy related tracking systems, and legal counsel on policy matters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 79
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: -12.4%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.47; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -2.9% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1.8% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $449K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 14 of 15 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 11/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.