Cpi Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462172469
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2014
Location
Chico, CA, USA
Phone
5305144341
Rating
62
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,227,097
Expenses
$1,128,997
Assets
$353,089
Liabilities
$27,728

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • SCOTT BURGHARDT (VICE PRESIDE): $184,439 total reported compensation
  • TANYA WATTENBURG KOMAS (EXECUTIVE DI): $50,600 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 concrete preservation institute is a nonprofit public benefit corporation organized and operated exclusively for public and charitable purposes to provide training and education of undergraduate and graduate college students, military veterans, and local youth that accomplishes the preservation of cultural resources and infrastructure, serves local and regional communities, and helps participants prepare to become future industry leaders and park stewards.

What it reported doing in 2024

Concrete preservation institute continues to train and transition active duty military, veterans, spouses and dependents participating in the program. We have expanded our scope and ability to complete more complex projects and thus expanding the learning opportunities for our participants. Concrete preservation institute continues to work toward an expansion to locations across the country to provide our program and opportunities to a larger number of transitioning service members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 81% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - 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: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 35
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 88.7%; rating input score 89
  • 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 33.3%; rating input score 33; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.31; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.8%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 88.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 1 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $184K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.