Pacific Nw Society For Coatings Technology

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
911018425
IRS 990 coverage
2023–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2022, Form 990-N 2014
Location
Shoreline, WA, USA
Phone
2068894157
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$58,820
Expenses
$77,054
Assets
$93,034
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Jeffery Wear (President)
  • Rory Layton (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Paul Campbell (Admin Treasurer): $3,600 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our purpose is to develop or provide scientific, engineering and technical data; facts and standards; and to promote research and the application of sciences to the further development, manufacture and use of paints, varnishes, lacquers, related protective and decorative coatings, printing inks and other related products, and the raw materials necessary for these products. It is also to promote educational activities and the interchange of ideas among its members and the public generally and to arrange for the collection and dissemination of information pertinent to the industries served by the society and for the presentation, discussion and publication of papers and other contributions. It is also to promote the improvement of products, the elimination of wasteful methods of manufacture and foster manufacturing procedures and practices that minimize pollution of the environment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cash was donated to CalPoly for the Kenneth N. Edwards Western Coatings Technology Fund. This was done to support the IAC Shadow a Chemist Program. The donations helps support a student during a summer work internship.

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 35% for direct work, 57% for grants, and 8% for affiliated organizations.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and revenue has grown recently. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 58
  • Accountability: 58
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 81.8%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 0 of 8 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: Missing
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Fail
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -31%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.21; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.7%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -105.9% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 81.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 0 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $4K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 18 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.