Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521660112
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Phone
2024491993
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,632,522
Expenses
$1,563,684
Assets
$1,128,889
Liabilities
$395,294

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

Leadership & pay

12 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • PRAGATI SRIVASTAVA (PRESIDENT)
  • GREGORY STUART (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ASHBY JOHNSON (PAST PRESIDENT (THRU JAN. 2025))
  • WILLIAM KEYROUZE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM KEYROUZE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $199,308 total reported compensation
  • CAITLIN COOK (SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & RESEARCH): $138,321 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Ampo is a nonprofit, membership organization established in 1990 to serve the needs and interests of "metropolitan planning organizations (mpos)" nationwide. Federal highway and transit statutes require, as a condition for spending federal highway or transit funds in urbanized areas, the designation of mpos, which have responsibility for planning, programming and coordination of federal highway and transit investments. Ampo offers its member mpos technical assistance and training, conferences and workshops, frequent electronic communications, research, a forum for transportation policy development and coalition building, and a variety of other services.

What it reported doing in 2024

Tech symposium - the ampo planning tools and training symposium is tailored to the requirements of mpos as well as the challenges associated with meeting such requirements and structured to meet the needs of small, medium, and large mpos. The symposium brings together mpo staff and practitioners to share information on a variety of mpo technical issues and provides peer-to-peer training for the mpo community to discuss challenges, opportunities, and implementation strategies with regard to current planning tools and applications. The goal of the symposium is to identify (or share) mpo best practices; provide practical training; and develop materials that can be shared across the mpo community.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 96% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program 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 - 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: 51
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 36
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 56.1%; rating input score 56
  • Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: $0 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.2%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.35; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.6%; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.3% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.3% per year; rating input score 100; 40th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 56.1% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $924K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $199K · 12 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 28 of 29 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 56/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 1/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 13/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.