Post Tensioning Institute
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 362870929
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Farmington Hills, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2488483190
- Rating
- 45
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $3,395,984
- Expenses
- $3,379,981
- Assets
- $2,061,437
- Liabilities
- $1,011,296
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
55 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Timothy Christle (Executive Vice President)
- Jack Graves (Past President)
- Coy Williams (Vice President)
- Gregory Hunsicker (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Timothy Christle (Executive Vice President): $211,902 total reported compensation
- Donna Halstead (Director of Finance): $5,915 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 Post Tensioning Institute (PTI) will promote and advance the post-tensioning industry through education and technical leadership.
What it reported doing in 2024
PTI's certification of field personnel is designed to educate field personnel involved in the installation and inspection of post-tensioning systems on the theories behind post-tensioned concrete, post-tensioning components, installation requirements, use of the stressing equipment and special requirements for encapsulated systems and barrier cable systems. PTI's plant certification program is designed to assure quality component, reliable fabrication, and responsible documentation. This industry wide program provides professional, independent verification that the certified plant can produce unbonded tendons in compliance with PTI specifications.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 95% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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: 0
- Transparency & Controls: 77
- Accountability: 86
- Sustainability: 31
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
- Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 0.5%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.61; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.4%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 53 of 53 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $212K · 55 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $2M reported
- Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
- Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 22/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.