Plano Improvement Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
812815232
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Plano, TX, USA
Phone
9729415235
Rating
59
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$338,665
Expenses
$321,825
Assets
$184,657
Liabilities
$11,450

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

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK ISRAELSON (PRESIDENT)
  • JACK CARR (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK ISRAELSON (PRESIDENT): $458,677 total reported compensation
  • DENISE TACKE (SECRETARY/TREASURER): $315,834 total reported compensation
  • JACK CARR (VICE-PRESIDENT): $299,299 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 plano improvement corporation exists to support the charitable activities of the city of plano, a Texas public municipality. The principal activity of the corporation will be the making of grants to or in support of the programs of the city. City programs that will be supported by the corporation will include economic development efforts of the city as well as administration and support of an internship program operated in conjunction with the city to provide summer education internship opportunities for students in plano independent school district. An additional program provided is the plano families first program that provides resources for educational and career purposes to plano residents.

What it reported doing in 2024

The plano improvement corporation supports the charitable activities of the city of plano making grants to support various programs. These programs include internship opportunities for students, which operates in conjunction with the city to provide summer education internship opportunities for students in plano independent school district. This activity connects motivated high school students with exceptional businesses and organizations in and around the city of plano, tx.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 96% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 49
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 53.6%; rating input score 54
  • Program expense ratio: 56.4%; rating input score 56
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.57; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.06; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 81.7%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.7% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 53.6% of revenue deployed · 56.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $182K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $459K · 3 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $139K reported
  • Consistency: 19 of 19 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 54/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 9 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 30/100.