GTI Energy
Legal name: Institute of Gas Technology
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 362170137
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Des Plaines, IL, USA
- Phone
- 1-847-768-0500
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Chemistry, Chemical Engineering
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $124,247,894
- Expenses
- $117,201,238
- Assets
- $157,719,871
- Liabilities
- $61,595,764
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
28 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR PAULA A GANT (President & CEO)
- MR DAVID C CARROLL (PRESIDENT & CEO - former)
Highest reported compensation
- DR PAULA A GANT (President & CEO): $1,236,647 total reported compensation
- MR JAMES F INGOLD (SVP of FINANCE, TREASURER, CFO): $796,959 total reported compensation
- MR QUINTON B FORD (SVP, Tech Dev, Gen Counsel, Co): $767,657 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
GTI Energy is where complex energy challenges meet bold solutions. With expertise in energy research, technology development, and business innovation, partners across every sector trust us to build and demonstrate solutions for better-performing energy systems.
What it reported doing in 2024
Sponsored energy and environmental research and technology development. Program services expenses include direct costs on projects only and exclude allocation of any indirect costs. Estimated number of clients: 260
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 47
- Transparency & Controls: 54
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 49
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
- Program expense ratio: 53.2%; rating input score 53
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.7%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.35; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.39; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 12 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
- Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 53.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 11 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $62.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $1.2M · 28 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3M reported
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 6 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 52/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 53/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 46/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.