Partnership for Transportation Innovation and Opportunity

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
825512690
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2023
Forms available
Form 990 2023
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Phone
4845536857
Rating
35
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$151,000
Expenses
$153,727
Assets
$206,657
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Andre Welch (Director)
  • Nathan Mehrens (Director)
  • Stefania Yanachkov (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of PTIO is to engage interested communities, policymakers, and other stakeholders to provide a forum for thoughtful discussion on the benefits and challenges posed by adoption of autonomous vehicle and related technology specific to the workforce. Our ultimate goal is to advocate for policies and programs that ensure all Americans benefit from this technology.

What it reported doing in 2023

PTIO hosted a roundtable that examined autonomous vehicles and workforce development through an equity-minded focus. The roundtable brought together diverse perspectives from leading think tanks, NGOs, and other organizations for a moderated discussion on the impacts and opportunities that AV technology will have on communities of color, including workforce development. The objective of the event was to initiate a dialogue on how to leverage public policy proposals to prepare communities of color for the opportunities and changes that AVs will bring, as well as to gain valuable perspectives to ensure equitable workforce outcomes.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 24
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.34; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 34.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $198 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 8 people listed
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $150K reported
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.