Partnership for Clean Competition

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
421763805
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Colorado Springs, CO, USA
Phone
7198663307
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
General Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,770,212
Expenses
$662,560
Assets
$3,523,782
Liabilities
$125,323

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Rusty Smith (Head of Research Programs): $27,687 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC) acts to protect the integrity of sport and public health by engaging and supporting the world's top scientists and innovators in high-quality anti-doping research and development.

What it reported doing in 2025

Funding of independent and innovative anti-doping research. The Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC) supports high-quality, high impact, novel research that has a high likelihood of success and will result in methods of products that will advance the anti-doping field to ensure integrity in sport. Expenses include independent scientific research grants and micro-grants paid to various universities and other world-class research institutions in an effort to further anti-doping research and develop more effective tests for detecting performance-enhancing drug use in sport.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 93% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 54% for direct work, and 46% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 54
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 81
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 31.7%; rating input score 32
  • Program expense ratio: 79.8%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $142.68 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Pass
    • Requires narrative reports: Pass
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Pass
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 62.6%; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.32; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -6.3% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.2% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 31.7% of revenue deployed · 79.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $528K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.