Central Maryland Chamber of Commerce Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521391478
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2011
Location
Hanover, MD, USA
Phone
2405810123
Rating
53
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$445,258
Expenses
$294,359
Assets
$97,489
Liabilities
$47,427

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dewan Clayborn (President CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Dewan Clayborn (President CEO): $141,667 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 Central Maryland Chamber of Commerce CMC is the regions leading voice and connector for business success. Its mission is to drive the regions economic success. Serving Anne Arundel Baltimore City and County Carroll Harford Howard Montgomery and Prince Georges counties CMC connects members to more than 2.8 million consumers. Guided by its vision-The Conduit of Commerce-the Chamber fulfills its mission through four core strategies: fostering partnerships enhancing investor services assuring operational excellence and sustaining financial health. The Chamber serves as a collaborative force

What it reported doing in 2025

The Central Maryland Chamber of Commerce is a trusted advocate for the central Maryland economy. We support the development of the Odenton Town Center growth at Ft. Meade the expansion of Arundel Mills and the necessary infrastructure funding.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 33.9%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.33; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.49; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 48.1%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.5% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 25 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 35 current checks pass · 12 findings to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX ConferencesMeetings column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PensionPlanContributions column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 9/100.