Student Engineers Council

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
742982563
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
College Station, TX, USA
Phone
9798478567
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,509,892
Expenses
$1,157,748
Assets
$2,911,141
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Megha Subhash (President)
  • Sarika Venkat (Vice President)
  • Fernando Hernandez-Brugo (Vice President)
  • Sean Bolger (Vice President)
  • Jose Emmanuel Mendoza (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Megha Subhash (President)
  • Sarisha Malla (Secretary)
  • Sarika Venkat (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

Student Engineers' Council (SEC) strives to be the representative voice of all engineering students at Texas A&M (TAMU). It works to increase engineering awareness through its programs and events and it fosters the professional advancement of all TAMU engineering students within the college of engineering.

What it reported doing in 2024

Professional Development of Engineering Students - Student Engineers' Council aims to promote the professional development of the students of the college of engineering by providing them with opportunities to interact with industry and means to fund their education. SEC hosts one of the nation's largest, student-run career fairs in the nation twice a year, with over 300 companies attending the Fall Fair and over 200 companies attending the Spring Fair. Additionally, SEC funds a number of scholarships and seminars to help advance all students within the college of engineering.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 65.3%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 85.2%; rating input score 85
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 81.8%; rating input score 82; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 70%; rating input score 70; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 23.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.51; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.6% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 65.3% of revenue deployed · 85.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 0 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $986K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 18 of 20 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.