Alameda Transportation Management Assoc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
320536529
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2018
Location
Alameda, CA, USA
Phone
5105015055
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Transportation Systems

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,423,755
Expenses
$1,302,136
Assets
$1,661,801
Liabilities
$358,986

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Michael O'Hara (President/Chair)

Highest reported compensation

  • Arsh Hothi (Director): $12,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Focus on the coordination of business community's efforts, including developers, corporations, residential and commercial property owners and employers to address common transportation concerns, improve accessibility and mobility, provide transportation services, and work cooperatively with local government to mitigate traffic congestion in Alameda County. In Furtherance of public benefit and social welfare, this corporation will advocate and promote the transportation demand management strategies for the purpose of, but not limited to: a) reducing weekday peak hour single occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips; b) reducing weekday total SOV trips; c) reducing total emissions; andd) increasing awareness and use of alternative modes of transportation

What it reported doing in 2025

The purpose of the ATMA is to manage and administer the implementation ofTDM Project Area programs by Project Area Committees (as herein defined); facilitate sharedTDM services as appropriate between TMA Project Areas; provide marketing for TMA ProjectArea programs and services; and coordinate annual monitoring, evaluation and reporting to theCity of Alameda in accordance with relevant Legally Binding Documents for each respectivedevelopment project within each TMA Project Area, with Board approval thereof prior tosubmittal to the City.

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 most voting board members are independent. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 49
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.5%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 89.9%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 15th 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: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.5%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.28; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 1%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 33.8% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.5% of revenue deployed · 89.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 53/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 50/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 24/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.