Community Data Roundtable
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 460808440
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2018–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Mars, PA, USA
- Phone
- 4129805438
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Urban, Community Economic Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $522,058
- Expenses
- $480,438
- Assets
- $876,422
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JESSE TROY (PRESIDENT)
- AMANDA HOPE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- DAN WARNER (BOARD MEMBER): $157,600 total reported compensation
- AMANDA HOPE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $116,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Community data roundtable is a nonprofit organization supporting data-driven decision making in the public behavioral and mental health system. Our mission is to bring together stakeholders from the behavioral and mental health system to implement a collaboratively beneficial outcomes monitoring system.
What it reported doing in 2025
Program implementation and trainingusing advanced data science, cdr crafts algorithms to match people to specific programs in their local system of care, with particular attention to standardized evidence-based programs. Cdr focuses on developing the system so that all stakeholders instantly receive benefits for their efforts implementing the system, both in regard to the benefits of the data, and the decision support for decision making. Cdr provides vibrant and engaging training in not only scoring the communimetirc tool, but also in how to use the tool at multiple levels of care. As part of cdr's nonprofit mission, our goal is to empower the system with data. Thus, cdr offers diy analysis courses to provider leadership, advocacy groups, and other groups as identified by the stakeholders.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 95% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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 - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 72
- Sustainability: 53
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 60.5%; rating input score 61
- Program expense ratio: 68.9%; rating input score 69
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 80%; rating input score 80; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 62
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Limited
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 8%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.82; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 56.9%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 4.2% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 4.5% per year; rating input score 100; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 60.5% of revenue deployed · 68.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 4 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $331K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 8 filing years from 2018 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.