Pcd Ks Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
200543474
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Bloomington, MN, USA
Phone
6123861261
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Diseases of Specific Organ Research

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,994,370
Expenses
$1,650,828
Assets
$3,595,466
Liabilities
$382,179

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • MICHELE MANION (EXEC DIR, PR): $185,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To provide the leadership and resources needed to support increased research, accelerated diagnosis, improved health, and ultimately a cure for primary ciliary dyskinesia (pcd).

What it reported doing in 2024

Our capacity-building activities include expanding, developing and strengthening the skills, abilities, processes, operations, technologies, and resources that allow us to complete our mission and manage our mission-critical programs. This includes adding critical staff with skills in business development (we hired 1 fte in this capacity), contracting with consultants who have expertise in areas our internal expertise was lacking (wolf associates for payroll, 401k and other hr guidance), and upgrading our technology to be able to handle our expanding needs. Additionally, we were able to send staff to meetings and confrences related to capacity building.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 89% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 80% for direct work, and 20% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 63
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.3%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 92%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $40.62 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: 0 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Claims monitoring procedures: Fail
    • Requires narrative reports: Fail
    • Conducts field audits: Fail
    • May suspend future funding: Fail
    • Requires financial reports: Fail
    • Conducts site visits: Fail
    • Requires grant agreements: Fail
    • May require repayment: Fail
  • Grant itemization coverage: 55.6%; rating input score 56; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.2%; rating input score 73; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.18; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.11; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 19.6% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 14.9% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 22.1% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.3% of revenue deployed · 92% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.5M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 7 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight: 8 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 42/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Foreign grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.