Capitalize Albany Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
222353905
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Albany, NY, USA
Phone
5184342532
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,525,905
Expenses
$2,343,959
Assets
$24,717,063
Liabilities
$3,287,593

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ASHLEY MOHL (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • ASHLEY MOHL (PRESIDENT): $259,150 total reported compensation
  • ANDREW CORCIONE (DIRECTOR REAL ESTATE DEVEL): $169,407 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of capitalize albany corporation is to facilitate strategic economic development and stimulate transformative investment throughout the city of albany, making New York's capital a vibrant place to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2025

Capitalize albany corporation (cac) provides economic development services in the city of albany, which include among other things: (1) the management of the city of albany industrial development agency and city of albany capital resources corporation (2) the administration of small business grant programs on behalf of the city of albany and (3) the development and implementation of strategic economic development initiatives such as impact downtown and the liberty park development and clinton market collective.

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 74% for direct work, and 26% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 60.7%; rating input score 61
  • Program expense ratio: 56.8%; rating input score 57
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 87.8%; rating input score 88; 30th 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: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 7.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.55; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 18.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 37th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 60.7% of revenue deployed · 56.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $259K · 15 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $155K reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 19 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.