Community Reach of Montgomery County
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 520910334
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rockville, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3016370730
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Neighborhood Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,386,890
- Expenses
- $2,589,625
- Assets
- $2,885,636
- Liabilities
- $2,301,860
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
21 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- SARAH BASEHART (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- ANDREA KEMPNER WINK (VICE PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- SARAH BASEHART (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $125,683 total reported compensation
- ANDREA KEMPNER WINK (VICE PRESIDENT): $69,954 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Empowers those who are underserved in montgomery county by addressing their essential needs to enhance the overall well-being of our community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Senior reach: provides a wide range of in-home services to seniors of modest incomes to help them remain safely and independently in their homes as they age.housing program (jefferson & rockland house): community reach of montgomery county's housing program includes two homes: the jefferson house and the rockland house, which offer permanent supportive housing for homeless men and women respectively, case management and counseling, and life skills development, all focused on helping them on their road to self-sufficiency. The housing program ensures that all residents have a safe and secure home, including a private bedroom and shared living space. Residents complete an individual service plan and are guided by a case manager on their path toward self sufficiency and personal growth. They take on responsibilities of paying rent based on their income and helping to maintain the house based on their ability. Regularly scheduled house meetings and workshops help residents develop skills for daily living.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 76% for direct work, and 24% for grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
The verdict
STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 66
- Transparency & Controls: 94
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 25
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 70.8%; rating input score 71
- Program expense ratio: 65%; rating input score 65
- Fundraising efficiency: $12.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -8.5%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.11; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.8; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7.6%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.6% per year; rating input score 100; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 70.8% of revenue deployed · 65% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.7M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $126K · 21 people listed
- Consistency: 38 of 38 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 15/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 41/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.