Underground Construction Technology Fka Gulf Coast Trenchless Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
760372678
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017
Location
Houston, TX, USA
Phone
7138210451
Rating
64
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$352,708
Expenses
$253,021
Assets
$396,186
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JUSTIN REEVES (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • JUSTIN REEVES (PRESIDENT)
  • ELAIZA ALVAREZ (NATIONAL DIRECTOR)
  • TYLER KAY (NATIONAL DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

114 member companies - the association promotes the education of contractors, engineers, municipalities and utilities in the trenchless construction and rehab of underground pipelines.

What it reported doing in 2025

The purpose of the underground construction technology association (ucta) is to promote education; training; research and development; information concerning traditional, trenchless and rehabilitation technology; and to promote the use of these technologies. Ucta serves to advance the science and practice of installing, repairing, maintaining, and replacing utility lines, as well as related facilities through construction and rehabilitation techniques. This also includes municipal water, sewer, wastewater, gas distribution, oil/gas transmission and gathering lines, telephone, electric, and cable systems.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 67% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 42% for direct work, and 58% for grants.

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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 38
  • Transparency & Controls: 93
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 36.8%; rating input score 37
  • Program expense ratio: 51.4%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: 28.3%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.57; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13.2% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 36.8% of revenue deployed · 51.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $130K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 17 of 17 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 53/100.