Professional Contract Services, Inc.
Legal name: Professional Contract Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 742786094
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-PF 2010, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Austin, Texas, US
- Phone
- (512) 358-8887
- Rating
- 66
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $246,080,465
- Expenses
- $219,845,576
- Assets
- $250,502,738
- Liabilities
- $46,543,098
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CUCOLO III ANTHONY A (PRESIDENT & CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- CUCOLO III ANTHONY A (PRESIDENT & CEO): $889,605 total reported compensation
- BARBOSA ERIC (SR VP & GENERAL COUNSEL): $527,565 total reported compensation
- JONES MARK K (SR VP & CFO): $524,676 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
PCSI is a nationwide, values-based, mission-driven contractor that proudly serves the private and public sector. We recruit, hire, and train veterans and people with significant disabilities.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization contracts with state and federal agencies through sourceamerica and workquest. The income and jobs from these sources are then used to provide training, education and employment opportunities to disabled individuals.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 99% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 72
- Transparency & Controls: 69
- Accountability: 42
- Sustainability: 61
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 77.9%; rating input score 78
- Program expense ratio: 87.5%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 87.5%; rating input score 88; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
- Grant itemization coverage: 96.7%; rating input score 97; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: No; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 10.7%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.4% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.3% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 77.9% of revenue deployed · 87.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $192.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $890K · 19 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $18.6M reported
- Consistency: 37 of 39 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes foreign activity, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 95 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 37 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.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.