Committee for Montgomery

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900437327
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2015–2019
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
3017621696
Rating
88
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$46,599
Expenses
$31,538
Assets
$35,380
Liabilities
$622

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2019. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

28 people listed

People named in this filing

  • ELLIE GILES (EXECUTIVE DI)
  • LARRY ARCH (DIRECTOR)
  • SHANNON BABE-THOMAS (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 2019. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To promote the social welfare, common good and general welfare of the people of montgomery county, Maryland to bring together diverse segments of montgomery county's political and community spectrum to assist the county's elected officials in presenting montgomery county priorities before the state government and state government, legislature and officials for these priorities to enclourage information and participation from a broad spectrum of people who live or work in montgomery county to study and develop dialogues and working relationships with similar groups from other jurisdictions.

What it reported doing in 2019

Agreement on issues - the issues committee meets in the summer and fall to achieve agreement on issues to be presented to the board of directors, public, state legislators and state government.

Operating model

Revenue model
Other-operating. 70% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filed totals do not add up and revenue has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 100
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 64
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 32.3%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.6% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -15.5% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $56K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 28 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2015 to 2019
  • 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 III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 48/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.