Community Foundation of Anne Arundel Co

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522098698
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Annapolis, MD, USA
Phone
4102801102
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$12,180,683
Expenses
$9,542,931
Assets
$48,586,684
Liabilities
$1,029,383

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MARY SPENCER (PRESIDENT CEO 01/2025-10/2025)
  • JOHN RODENHAUSEN (DIR. OF GIFT PLANNING 1/25-10/25, PRESIDENT CEO 11/25- PRESENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • MARY SPENCER (PRESIDENT CEO 01/2025-10/2025): $211,387 total reported compensation
  • JOHN RODENHAUSEN (DIR. OF GIFT PLANNING 1/25-10/25, PRESIDENT CEO 11/25- PRESENT): $126,790 total reported compensation
  • JENNIFER LAGROTTERIA (DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPIC RESOURCES): $116,522 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Cfaacs mission is to inspire and promote giving in anne arundel county by connecting people who care with causes that matter. Through grantmaking, fund management, donor services, giving circles, nonprofit capacity-building programs, and community leadership initiatives, continued in sch o

What it reported doing in 2025

In 2025, cfaac made 856 grants totaling 9.7 million to support nonprofit organizations in anne arundel county and across the country. Cfaac also reached more than 1,100 participants through educational programming designed to strengthen nonprofit capacity, develop leadership, and enhance donor engagement. Cfaac administers 10 field of interest funds that pool donor contributions to support priority community needs in anne arundel county, including after-school programs, services for women and children, crisis response, food insecurity, support for underserved populations, and environmental protection. These funds enable donors to direct their charitable giving to specific areas of interest, while cfaac manages the evaluation and distribution of grants to ensure effective and efficient use of resources. Continued in sch o

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 85% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 94% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 76.2%; rating input score 76
  • Program expense ratio: 92.1%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $32.7 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 23rd 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: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.3%; rating input score 95; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.7%; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.09; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.9%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.9% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.7% per year; rating input score 100; 86th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 76.2% of revenue deployed · 92.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 19 of 19 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $211K · 23 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 36 of 38 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 155 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 147 filed related-organization links
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.