Printing Industry Assoc of Ga Educational Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
581605020
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Smyrna, GA, USA
Phone
6788161164
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$62,530
Expenses
$74,682
Assets
$888,326
Liabilities
$184,254

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • JONATHAN KRUEGER (EX-OFFICIO): $12,400 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide grants and scholarships to students and colleges to promote the printing industry

What it reported doing in 2025

In conjunction with its contract with the Georgia department of education, piag provided program content for graphic communication educators in approximately 100 high schools in Georgia. This includes sponsoring the annual skill USA competition for students in these schools in career fields such as printing production, graphic design, and screen printing. Piag support of skills USA includes hosting competition, judging by members of the association and awards and reaccreditation of these schools under the printed program sponsored by the graphic arts education and research foundation (gaerf).

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 97% 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

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 95.1%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 47.2%; rating input score 47
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Limited
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -19.4%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.89; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.21; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.6%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 95.1% of revenue deployed · 47.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $35K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 47/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 35/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.