Pci Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
364462696
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Chicago, IL, USA
Phone
3127860300
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Single Organization Support

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$902,142
Expenses
$1,003,437
Assets
$598,233
Liabilities
$523,806

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • RAY CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • RAY CLARK (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $215,121 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Mission of the foundation is to foster educational initiatives focused on innovative approaches to the integrated and sustainable use of precast concrete design, fabrication, and construction. Pci foundation helps create precast-focused college experiences. The foundation funds "precast studios" at schools around the united states in partnership with local organizations who help create the curricula.

What it reported doing in 2024

Provide curriculum development grants to schools of architecture, engineering and construction management. These grants allow professors to partner with local precast producers, engineers and architects to create unique content that cultivates productive relationships between the precast industry and the academic community, develops high-potential students for productive careers within the industry and facilitates including precast concrete information and technologies in university curricula.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 99% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 47% for direct work, and 53% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 79
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 89.2%; rating input score 89
  • Program expense ratio: 72%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.1%; rating input score 99; 48th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -11.2%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.88; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1.7% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 89.2% of revenue deployed · 72% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $722K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $215K · 22 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 5 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.