Pennsylvania College of Technology Foundation Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 232186644
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Williamsport, PA, USA
- Phone
- 5703208020
- Rating
- 84
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $11,448,243
- Expenses
- $3,504,697
- Assets
- $36,584,224
- Liabilities
- $124,353
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
38 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR MICHAEL J REED (DIRECTOR (PRESIDENT PCT))
- KYLE A SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KYLE A SMITH (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $107,558 total reported compensation
- LONI N KLINE (DIRECTOR/VP COLLEGE RELATI): $59,645 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Pennsylvania college of technology foundation ("foundation") shall operate for the purpose of securing financial and other support necessary to assist the Pennsylvania college of technology in achieving its mission of providing hands-on technical education.
What it reported doing in 2024
The foundation currently administers more than 375 scholarship funds, supporting various majors, some of which were established in honor or memory of penn college alumni, students, faculty, and friends. Partnerships with business and industry are a long-standing tradition of Pennsylvania college of technology (pct) and the foundation works to develop and sustain mutually beneficial relationships with business and industry. These partnerships are integral to providing our students with the level of instruction needed to support workforce requirements. Continued on schedule o.program service expenditures represent grant allocations and expenses provided to pct for the benefit of students through direct financial assistance in the form of scholarships; the enhancement of academic programs, including the subsidizing of equipment and technology purchases, and the funding of experiential learning opportunities; the support of k-12 outreach efforts; and the supplemental funding of the madigan library and the dr. Welch workshop-a makerspace at penn college.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 74
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 89
- Sustainability: 90
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 58.7%; rating input score 59
- Program expense ratio: 96.4%; rating input score 96
- Fundraising efficiency: $102.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 97.3%; rating input score 97; 31st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 69.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.44; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 4.8%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.3% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.5% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.4% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 58.7% of revenue deployed · 96.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 36 of 37 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $108K · 38 people listed
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.