Pittsburgh Gateways Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
232939083
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Phone
4128020770
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,990,790
Expenses
$2,882,705
Assets
$40,435,348
Liabilities
$2,579,782

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • WILLIAM MILLER (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • DONALD EVANS (PRESIDENT & CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • DONALD EVANS (PRESIDENT & CEO): $268,280 total reported compensation
  • WILLIAM MILLER (VICE PRESIDENT): $249,517 total reported compensation
  • ROBERT MEEDER (CHAIRMAN): $217,223 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 strategic planning, development and direct management assistance for communities, community-based economic development organizations, research & academic institutions, and private entities seeking the acceleration of technology-based businesses. Part of this mission is a goal to combat community deterioration in the city of pittsburgh and other economically distressed areas of Pennsylvania.

What it reported doing in 2024

Economic development activity in the johnstown, Pennsylvania region to create corporate unemployment training, student internships for technology advancement and impact the development of related assets in the entire johnstown area.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. 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: 35
  • Transparency & Controls: 67
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 75
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 32.8%; rating input score 33
  • Program expense ratio: 47.3%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: $4.09 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 14.03; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.5% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 32.8% of revenue deployed · 47.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $268K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $145K reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.