Engineers in Action Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261746131
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tulsa, OK, USA
Phone
9186305997
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,579,965
Expenses
$1,379,247
Assets
$690,528
Liabilities
$126,010

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRANDON JOHNSON (Past President)
  • STEPHAN R GUY (President & CFO)
  • PATRICK MALONE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • ETHAN GINGERICH (Executive Dir.): $90,350 total reported compensation
  • JULIE ALLEN (EXECUTIVE DIR.): $23,656 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Engineers in action (eia) provides engineering solutions to improve the lives of people located in impoverished nations. Eia facilitates the building of water systems, sanitation structures and footbridges in bolivia, ecuador and eswatini with volunteer services from participating university engineering programs.

What it reported doing in 2024

The EIA bridge program builds footbridges with isolated communities to ensure they have year-round safe access to essential resources such as education, healthcare, and markets. In 2024, the program included EIA volunteer teams at six companies and 21 universities in North America and Europe. With the help of those teams, the bridge program worked with isolated communities to design and build nine pedestrian footbridges in Bolivia and seven in Eswatini serving 24,290 people in 2024. Program services include oversight and management of volunteer teams, education program, logistical support for traveling teams, vetting of potential project sites, and close coordination with community, municipal and state government officials and agencies to identify communities in need and to secure program support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 70% for direct work, and 30% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. The filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 58; 58th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 88.2%; rating input score 88; 3rd 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: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 62.5%; rating input score 63; 31st 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 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 12.7%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 14.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $90K · 19 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 28 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • 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: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 58/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.