Innovatepgh Partnership
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 271727604
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2013
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Phone
- 6142843689
- Rating
- 86
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,806,242
- Expenses
- $3,635,246
- Assets
- $2,453,288
- Liabilities
- $465,511
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SEAN LUTHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- SEAN LUTHER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $200,343 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
A next generation public-private partnership - powered by a coalition of civic institutions representing the region's university, business, philanthropic, and government leadership - to accelerate pittsburgh's status as a global innovation city.
What it reported doing in 2025
Promote inclusive innovation, responsible neighborhood revitalization, and a broad-based, entrepreneurial culture in pittsburgh. Implement recommendations from the 2017, "capturing the next economy: pittsburgh's rise as a global innovation city", define, grow, and connect the pittsburgh innovation district and manage the avenu workspaces co-working platform. Improve the pipeline of high-growth entrepreneurs. Build and support pittsburgh's innovation clusters. Intentionally connect startup and innovation ecosystem programming to workforce/upskilling opportunities, narrative shifting, and network development efforts.
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 67% for direct work, and 33% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 94
- Transparency & Controls: 83
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 19
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 87.7%; rating input score 88
- Fundraising efficiency: $60.25 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- 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: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -29.5%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 22% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 20.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14.3% per year; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 87.7% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $200K · 10 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $147K reported
- Consistency: 36 of 36 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 36/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.