Poca Technical Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
455496763
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2015, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Higher Education Institutions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$329,786
Expenses
$332,710
Assets
$244,664
Liabilities
$235,985

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JADE FANG (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LISA ROHLEDER L AC (EXECUTIVE DI): $40,371 total reported compensation
  • SONYA GREGG (CO-EXECUTIVE): $23,746 total reported compensation
  • JERSEY MICHELLE RIVERS (CO-ED): $23,746 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Poca technical institute is a nonprofit acupuncture school that recruits and trains students to provide acupuncture to underserved communities and to establish an academic foundation for the practice of liberation acupuncture.

What it reported doing in 2024

Poca technical institute provides a master's level certificate in acupunture that both meets accreditation requirements and that prepares student graduates for successful employment. For the year ended december 31, 2024, there were 35 active students in the school program.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 68% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.6%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 79.9%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $18.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.9%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.74; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.96; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 26.4%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.8% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.9% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.6% of revenue deployed · 79.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $266K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $40K · 12 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2016 to 2024
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 37/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.