Anne Arundel Economic Development Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521810772
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Annapolis, MD, USA
Phone
4102227410
Rating
69
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,100,708
Expenses
$5,999,965
Assets
$9,657,312
Liabilities
$8,224,321

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

Leadership & pay

26 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LISA GRUNDER (VICE PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION)
  • STEPHEN PRIMOSCH (VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCIAL SERVICES)
  • VICTORIA ZELEFSKY (VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS)
  • AMY GOWAN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • STEPHEN PRIMOSCH (VICE PRESIDENT, FINANCIAL SERVICES): $213,377 total reported compensation
  • WESLEY MACQUILLIAM (CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER): $211,837 total reported compensation
  • LISA GRUNDER (VICE PRESIDENT, ADMINISTRATION): $190,318 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To serve business needs and to increase anne arundel county economic base through job growth and investment.

What it reported doing in 2024

Anne arundel economic development corporation serves as a manager of Maryland small minority and women-owned business loan fund, which receives 1.5% of video lottery terminal revenue from Maryland casinos. Small and minority, women and veteran owned businesses located within 10 miles of any of Maryland's three casinos and those located elsewhere in the state may be eligible for loans of between $25,000 to $500,000 for purposes such as business and commercial real estate acquisition and expansion, leasehold improvements, equipment and vehicle purchase, and working capital.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 57% for direct work, and 43% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.7%; rating input score 77
  • Program expense ratio: 76.9%; rating input score 77
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 2nd 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: 41.4%; rating input score 41; 14th 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 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.7%; rating input score 40; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.61; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.85; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 9.9% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.7% of revenue deployed · 76.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 26 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 32 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 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: 31 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 19 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 41/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 40/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.