National Association of Power Engineers Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521726075
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7038457055
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,582,404
Expenses
$1,478,347
Assets
$9,277,708
Liabilities
$5,624,673

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ANDY REDMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID FERRARA (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID DARGENZIO (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DAVID DARGENZIO (CEO): $331,987 total reported compensation
  • JASON TROTMAN (DIRECTOR): $10,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To help in the transfer of traditional and emerging knowledge within the profession to take advantage of new platforms and channels; and to address the demand for trained and certified building engineering professionals.

What it reported doing in 2024

Napeef targets training and education with unique content; potential for professional development and expertise; widely recognized certification programs and licensing preparation; opportunities for operational improvements, development of advanced skill sets for career enhancement; emerging knowledge in energy management; and development of professional network with leading practitioners in the field of building engineering services.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 81% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.1%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 63.3%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 90%; rating input score 90; 23rd 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6.6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 6.28; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.61; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 23.2%; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 1.6% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.1% of revenue deployed · 63.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $935K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $332K · 11 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 11/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.