Scte Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
203131269
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Doylestown, PA, USA
Phone
6103636888
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Scholarships, Student Financial Aid Services, Awards

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$323,209
Expenses
$915,999
Assets
$3,564,348
Liabilities
$85,602

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARK DZUBAN (PRESIDENT (THRU 5/25))
  • KEN KLAER (PRESIDENT (AS OF 5/25))
  • BILL WARGA (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARK DZUBAN (PRESIDENT (THRU 5/25)): $1,632,442 total reported compensation
  • MARIA POPO (DIRECTOR): $580,330 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 scte foundation is a non-profit organization that is dedicated to ensuring the continued ability of a diverse workforce to positively impact the community, including in times of crisis. Using funds contributed by individual and corporate donors, the foundation supports programs that: increase technical workforce skills; attract women, minorities and members of the armed forces to cable engineering careers; promote stem activities among young people; and underpin cable workforce support for essential and emergency communication needs.

What it reported doing in 2024

Grants - provide grants and scholarships to assist scte members in their continual pursuit of knowledge, training and professional development in the cable telecommunication industry, and provide disaster relief funds for those in the cable industry that have suffered losses from natural disasters.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 18.2%; rating input score 18
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -183.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.89; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.5%; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.3% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81% of revenue deployed · 18.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $167K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $1.6M · 14 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $527K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 3 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 — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 18/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 1/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 39/100.