Studio HPDC
Legal name: The Studio for High-performance Design & Contruction Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 831655450
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2025
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2022
- Location
- Newton, MA, USA
- Phone
- (301) 202-4337
- Rating
- 72
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Educational Services and Schools - Other
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $756,530
- Expenses
- $340,827
- Assets
- $509,365
- Liabilities
- $78,997
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- NICK FALKOFF (PRESIDENT)
- KEITH LEWIS (VICE PRESIDENT)
- AMY LIEB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- AMY LIEB (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $135,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Studio for High-Performance Design + Construction is a 501(c)(3) organization that provides training and education in high-performance building practices.
What it reported doing in 2025
Studio for high-performance design & construction inc (studio hpdc) provides comprehensive workforce training, continuing education, and academic partnerships focused on high-performance, net zero, and passive house design and construction. The organization's flagship program, high-performance building for carpenters, delivers intensive immersive instruction to tradespeople and builders. This curriculum blends building science discussions with hands-on practice using schematics and physical mock assemblies. Training heavily emphasizes the four critical control layers of modern high-performance housing: water, air, vapor, and thermal energy control across foundations, wall assemblies, window installations, and roofing systems.in addition to direct trade training, the organization runs the tech school accelerator program. This initiative partners with boston-area vocational schools to integrate high-performance career paths and technical competencies directly into existing secondary construction curriculums. Through these programs, students and educators actively engage with industry professionals, building companies, and potential employers. All programming is anchored within the organization's specialized physical facilities, the studio and the barn, which serve as real-world, high-performance building classrooms designed to teach occupants by example.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 77% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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
SUPPORTED - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 58
- Transparency & Controls: 86
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 37.4%; rating input score 37
- Program expense ratio: 83%; rating input score 83
- Fundraising efficiency: $187.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th 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: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 54.9%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.49; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 39.6%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 61% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 101.1% per year; rating input score 100; 99th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 126.4% per year; rating input score 100; 99th 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: 37.4% of revenue deployed · 83% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $283K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $135K · 7 people listed
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $332K reported
- Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 3 filing years from 2023 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 37/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 55/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.