College Park City-University Partnership

Legal name: College Park City- University Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522063054
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
College Park, MD, US
Phone
8456492477
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,598,178
Expenses
$946,225
Assets
$16,171,658
Liabilities
$66,241

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN HARTMANN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN HARTMANN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $190,940 total reported compensation
  • DANIEL CUNNINGHAM (EXECUTIVE DIR./COMM. PRES. TRUST): $134,000 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 foster collaboration between the City of College Park and the University of Maryland to enhance the quality of life, economic vitality, and community development in the University District.

What it reported doing in 2024

With our partners, the city of college park and the university of Maryland as well as prince george's county, the state of Maryland, and the many stakeholders of residents, business owners, landowners, and more, we have continued to make great progress in recent years totransform college park as outlined in the university community vision 2030. This year the partnership's four strategic areas include neighborhood preservation and development, transportation, pre-k-12 education, and public health and safety. These each are required to run equity and sustainability through. These committees support initiatives such as the partnership's homeownership program, the preservation of retail stores and restaurants, riverwalks, new murals, and continued implementation of pedestrian and bicyclist safety infrastructure.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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: 34
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 20.2%; rating input score 20
  • Program expense ratio: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • Fundraising efficiency: $15.5 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 13th 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: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 73.7%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 17.09; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 34.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.9% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 25.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 26.1% per year; rating input score 100; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 20.2% of revenue deployed · 51.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $491K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $191K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 26 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 20/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 52/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 52/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.