National Academy of Engineering Fund

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237284092
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
2023342281
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$10,127,676
Expenses
$10,325,419
Assets
$123,476,393
Liabilities
$5,084,969

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN L ANDERSON (PRESIDENT OF NAE)
  • WESLEY L HARRIS (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOHN L ANDERSON (PRESIDENT OF NAE): $1,160,699 total reported compensation
  • ROGER L MCCARTHY (TREASURER): $50,470 total reported compensation
  • WESLEY L HARRIS (VICE PRESIDENT): $50,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Naef supports the activities of the national academy of engineering (nae). Nae operates within the charter and framework of the national academy of sciences (nas) and advises the federal government on matters of science and technology. Nae also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes engineers' superior achievements.

What it reported doing in 2024

The national academy of engineering (nae) presents seven awards: the charles stark draper prize for engineering, fritz j. And dolores h. Russ prize, bernard m. Gordon prize for innovation in engineering and technology education, arthur m. Bueche award, simon ramo founders award, gibbs brothers medal, and j.c. Hunsaker award in aeronautical engineering. Activities include soliciting nominations, selecting recipients, announcing awardees, and presenting the prizes. In 2024, only one awardthe charles stark draper prize for engineeringwas presented.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 62
  • Accountability: 72
  • Sustainability: 58
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 68.5%; rating input score 68
  • Program expense ratio: 60.4%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $6.33 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 12
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Limited
    • Conducts field audits: Limited
    • May suspend future funding: Limited
    • Requires financial reports: Limited
    • Conducts site visits: Limited
    • Requires grant agreements: Limited
    • May require repayment: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 66.7%; rating input score 67; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: -2%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.96; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.9%; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -0.8% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 68.5% of revenue deployed · 60.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $6.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 21 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $679K reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 26/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.