Pittsburgh Technical Institute Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 810903939
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2016–2022
- Forms available
- Form 990 2022, Form 990-N 2015
- Location
- Oakdale, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4128095100
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- University or Technological Institute
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $23,870,856
- Expenses
- $31,885,111
- Assets
- $44,534,994
- Liabilities
- $41,980,541
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DR ALICIA HARVEY-SMITH (PRESIDENT/EX-OFFICIO MEMBE)
- STEPHEN LIPIELLO (VICE PRESIDENT / CFO)
- SUNJAY BALI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CORPORATE COLLEGE)
- DAWN MAIDA (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF BUDGET)
- JAY CLAYTON (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT / CFO)
Highest reported compensation
- DR ALICIA HARVEY-SMITH (PRESIDENT/EX-OFFICIO MEMBE): $369,789 total reported compensation
- BARRY SHEPARD (VP MARKETING & COMMUNICATI): $213,847 total reported compensation
- JAY CLAYTON (FORMER VICE PRESIDENT / CFO): $144,253 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2022. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of the institution, as a degree-granting institution, is to empower its students to suceed in today's dynamic world by integrating general studies and professional skills into a sound career-focused education that provides the life skills necessary for students to realize their full potential and career goals
What it reported doing in 2022
Pittsburgh technical college (ptc) operates a degree-granting postsecondary institution that will empower students to succeed in today's dynamic world by integrating general studies and professional skills into a sound career-focused education that provides the life skills necessary for students to realize their full potential and career goals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 90% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 86% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 75
- Transparency & Controls: 87
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 22
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 93.1%; rating input score 93
- Program expense ratio: 69.3%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: -33.6%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.94; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 16.1% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 78th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 93.1% of revenue deployed · 69.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $22.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $370K · 21 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $1.2M reported
- Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
- Schedules: 10 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2016 to 2022
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 12 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.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.