Pittsburgh Community Science Workshop Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 852108245
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2024–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA, USA
- Rating
- 69
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $125,689
- Expenses
- $79,868
- Assets
- $74,908
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Claire Fox (Executive Director and Board Secretary)
People named in this filing
- Natalie Boyanovsky (Chair and Board Member)
- Yvonne Rainey (Vice-Chair and Board Member)
- Nachu Lakshmanan (Treasurer)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To fill opportunity gaps for young people from low income and underserved communities allowing them to grow academically and expand their confidence through hands-on science and creative enrichment
What it reported doing in 2024
Pittsburgh Community Science Workshop provided 646 hands-on high quality science enrichment sessions that reached 1,301 youth and family members from low income and under-served communities during the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Over half of our programs were offered free of cost including a free walk-in after-school program for all ages every MTWF. Programs took place at low-performing public schools public parks and libraries and community based nonprofits serving low-income populations.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 76% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 55.2%; rating input score 55
- Program expense ratio: 86.9%; rating input score 87
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.5%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.94; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 60.7%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 55.2% of revenue deployed · 86.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment · $69K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- 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 55/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.