Engineering for Us All Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 882703174
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2024–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- College Park, MD, USA
- Phone
- 2406230053
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,522,830
- Expenses
- $1,294,429
- Assets
- $1,459,002
- Liabilities
- $723,773
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
8 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STACY KLEIN-GARDNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- STACY KLEIN-GARDNER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $191,637 total reported compensation
- ABUBAKR MOHAMED HAMID (CHIEF PROGRAMS OFFICER): $131,092 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To equip students and educators with engineering mindsets that are ready to solve real-world challenges utilizing our evidence-backed curriculum and a community of practice that partners education and industry.
What it reported doing in 2025
Teacher professional learning - teacher professional learning is a core service of e4usa. Teachers participate in professional development to prepare for teaching the e4usa curriculum. This includes a week-long summer session, followed by shorter professional development events and coaching throughout the year. After their first year, teachers may optionally participate in returning teacher professional learning to further enhance their knowledge, skills, and practices in engineering education.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 75% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 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: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 47
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 67.1%; rating input score 67
- Program expense ratio: 78.6%; rating input score 79
- Fundraising efficiency: $21.46 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 78th 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; 64th 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: 15%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.13; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.5; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 24.9%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 20.2% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.7% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 90.9% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 67.1% of revenue deployed · 78.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $192K · 8 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.