Rochester Engineering Society Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 160743133
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Rochester, NY, USA
- Phone
- 5855868030
- Rating
- 64
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Public, Societal Benefit
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $60,644
- Expenses
- $41,837
- Assets
- $345,477
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Michael T Kurdziel PhD (2nd Vice President)
- Michelle Sommerman PE (Past President/Treasurer)
- Dennis Roote PE (President)
- Dawn LaPietra (1st Vice President)
People named in this filing
- Steven W Day PhD (Director)
- Richard E Rice (Director)
- Michael T Kurdziel PhD (2nd Vice President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The RES will become the lead organization for improving the image and influence of the engineering community in the greater Rochester area by: Demonstrating a comprehensive knowledge of the region's engineering and technical capabilities; (Continued on Schedule O)Providing the best clerical support and public relations assistance to our affiliates; Continually communicating the engineering and technical accomplishments to both the engineering and technical community and the public; Providing regular forums and networking opportunities for the exchange of ideas and discussion of issues; and Providing programs that identify career opportunities to the region's youth and develop the skills of the practicing engineer.
What it reported doing in 2024
Scholarship and awards - RES solicits applications for scholarships and professional awards, administers the process, and determines the recipients. In 2024 - 2025 seven (7) scholarships were given, total amount given = $10,500 and eleven (11) professional awards were given including Engineer of the Year (1), Young Engineer of the Year (1), Young Engineer of the Year Finalists (5), and Engineers of Distinction (4).
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 79% for direct work, and 21% for grants.
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: 42
- Transparency & Controls: 93
- Accountability: 76
- Sustainability: 70
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 35.3%; rating input score 35
- Program expense ratio: 68.2%; rating input score 68
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 31%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 8.26; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -7.5% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 2.4% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 35.3% of revenue deployed · 68.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $29K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 14 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 35/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 59/100.