The Asme Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
133372934
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
New York, NY, USA
Phone
2125917000
Rating
72
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Engineering and Technology

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,191,568
Expenses
$3,780,722
Assets
$42,189,017
Liabilities
$2,325,201

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • STEPHANIE VIOLA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • ANAND SETHUPATHY (FORMER INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS COSTABILE (DIRECTOR, EX-OFFICIO): $2,088,766 total reported compensation
  • THOMAS MEEHAN (TREASURER): $507,116 total reported compensation
  • ANAND SETHUPATHY (FORMER INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $498,553 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The asme foundation, inc. Through generous support of the engineering community, funds programs in k-12 stem education, student and early career development, engineering for global development, and public policy.

What it reported doing in 2024

Stem: in order to spark a passion for stem in youth, providing students with a dynamic look at the world of engineering innovation is a critical first step to a rewarding, fullfilling career in the field. The asme foundation, inc. Supports initiatives in k-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem); university student & early career development; including inspire. Inspire is a unique digital platform that utilizes digital tools like gaming and virtual simulations to teach critical, career-focused technology and coding skills while exposing students to stem opportunities that they might never have dreamed were within their reach. During its eleventh year, the asme's foundation's k-12 programs were available to schools in all 50 states, reaching a total of 50,000 students nationwide.

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 45% for direct work, and 55% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 64
  • Accountability: 66
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 78.3%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 97.6%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 57.1%; rating input score 57; 9th 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: 27.2%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.16; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 19.7%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.6% per year; rating input score 100; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 78.3% of revenue deployed · 97.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $2.1M · 9 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 5 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.