Additive Manufacturer Green Trade Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844638283
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2020, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Hollywood, FL, USA
Phone
9543080888
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$486,705
Expenses
$468,953
Assets
$220,363
Liabilities
$141,212

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

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sherrill Monroe (Executive Director)
  • Brian Neff (President and Board Chair)

Highest reported compensation

  • Sherrill Monroe (Executive Director): $159,939 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 promote the environmental benefits of additive manufacturing within key industries and the general public as a whole.

What it reported doing in 2025

The organization seeks to educate the public and industry about these positive environmental benefits, promote the adoption of additive manufacturing as an alternative to traditional manufacturing, develop best practices for additive manufacturing and help the organization's members grow their businesses and acquire new customers. In order to accomplish these goals, the organization engages in marketing and advertising campaigns, sponsors, conducts and publishes the results of research, and promotes the organization's membership.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 100% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 50
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 55.6%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 57.7%; rating input score 58
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.6%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.47; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.64; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.1%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.2% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17.6% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 55.6% of revenue deployed · 57.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $271K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $160K · 5 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 39 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.