Anne Arundel Community College Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526078381
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arnold, MD, USA
Phone
4107772515
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,214,895
Expenses
$3,276,006
Assets
$40,810,735
Liabilities
$5,079,790

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DAN MATHIAS (PRESIDENT)
  • LAURA WESTERVELT (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • CULLEN MURRAY (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • VOLLIE MELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • VOLLIE MELSON (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $207,283 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 anne arundel community college foundation, inc. Is a 501(c)(3) corporation whose mission is to expand private philanthropy & cultivate partnerships to enhance aacc's ability to support students & initiatives that strengthen our community.

What it reported doing in 2024

Support of college programs: the foundation's focus has historically been on providing scholarships to anne arundel community college students, which remains one of the foundation's primary purposes. However, as the complexities of a 21st century education increase, additional resources in areas such as technology, equipment, departmental support, facilities, student enrichment and innovation help protect the college's position of strength. Generous contributions to the aacc foundation allow the foundation to provide funding for such needs that cannot be met by the college's annual budget. See schedule o for additional details on program support disbursed in the current year.these contributions protect the college's margin of excellence and ensure a regional vitality powered by an educated citizenry and workforce.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 78% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of total spending goes to programs 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: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 86
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59.1%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 92.2%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.26 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 47.3%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 12.46; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59.1% of revenue deployed · 92.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 26 of 26 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: CEO compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 54/100.