Portland Institute for Contemporary Art

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
931177971
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, OR, USA
Phone
5032421419
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Performing Arts Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,018,235
Expenses
$2,474,760
Assets
$2,832,875
Liabilities
$1,461,168

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • REUBEN ROQUENI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • REUBEN ROQUENI (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $114,338 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Pica acknowledges and advances the emerging ideas in art by fostering the creative explorations of contemporary artists.

What it reported doing in 2024

Through exhibitions, performances, artist residencies and educational programs, portland institute for contemporary art (pica) enables artists and audiences alike to push the limits of artistic expression and explore provocative new ideas that illuminate life in the here and now. Pica supports this mission through dynamic programming, an unwavering commitment to artists, and a clear vision of the importance of the arts in the lives of individuals and of the community at large. Pica champions creative exploration, leads the curious in deepening their understanding of art and ideas, and supports the aesthetic risk-taking that challenges both artisits and audiences with new ways of seeing, representing and responding to contemporary life.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 84% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - 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: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 76.4%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.51 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -22.6%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.52; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.6%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.7% of revenue deployed · 76.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $114K · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 29 of 30 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 19/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.