Collaborative Solutions Maryland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
901011382
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2017–2018
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2018, Form 990-N 2016
Location
Adelphi, MD, USA
Phone
3014452789
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Labor Unions

Reported finances

Revenue
$50,654
Expenses
$37,512
Assets
$42,630

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • GUY JONES (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)

People named in this filing

  • GUY JONES (PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR)
  • SURESH BALAKRISHNAN (TREASURER/DIRECTOR)
  • DAVID BOBART (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To advance education, research, economic development and pubilc service by assisting in the exchange of information by means of high-speed digital communication techniques among csm's members. Assist csm's members in gaining access to scientific and educational resources; supporting collaborative instruction, research, economic development and public service; and facilitating access to regional and national networks and other national resources. Support the education, service and research missions of csm's members.

What it reported doing in 2018

CSM was created by USM to encourage and promote IT resource sharing for the benefit of educational members. CSM works with other established membership organizations such as Maryland Research and Education Network (MDREN), and Maryland Education Enterprise Consortium (MEEC) to provide access to services that otherwise would not be affordable. It also provides a means for member institutions to share resources in a group cost recovery structure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 60
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 25.9%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.14; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -85.5% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 4 of 5 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2017 to 2018
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 51/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.