Convention & Visitors Bureau of Greater Portland

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
010384674
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Portland, ME, USA
Phone
2077724994
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$726,482
Expenses
$794,631
Assets
$390,137
Liabilities
$242,486

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TILLOTSON LYNN (PRESIDENT, CEO)
  • TOLK AMY (VICE PRESIDENT, CFO)

Highest reported compensation

  • TILLOTSON LYNN (PRESIDENT, CEO): $49,231 total reported compensation
  • TOLK AMY (VICE PRESIDENT, CFO): $34,989 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The mission of the convention and visitors bureau of greater portland is to stimulate the economic vitality of greater portland by soliciting and servicing conventions, meetings, groups, and visitors by promoting greater portland as a preferred destination.

What it reported doing in 2024

Staffing at three visitor centers - the convention & visitors bureau operates three visitor information centers (two of them seasonally) in strategic locations throughout the portland area. Visitor information specialists are knowledgeable about what there is to see and do in the greater portland region, serving as an invaluable resource to the traveling public. Visitor center staff provide a welcoming environment which is crucial to maintaining portlands reputation as an attractive tourism destination. Specialists who can refer visitors to appropriate accommodations, restaurants, and attractions are a valuable resource for local businesses which rely on tourism dollars.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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

MIXED - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 21
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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: 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: -9.4%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.49; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.62; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 10.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.6% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 21 of 21 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 23 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 26 current checks pass · 16 findings to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Advertising column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX AllOtherExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX DepreciationDepletion column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesAccounting column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX FeesForServicesOther column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX InformationTechnology column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Insurance column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Interest column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Occupancy column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OfficeExpenses column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX OtherSalariesAndWages column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX PayrollTaxes column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX Travel column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.