Downtown Frederick Partnership Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521682341
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Frederick, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3016988118
- Rating
- 77
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community Coalitions
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,291,700
- Expenses
- $2,173,928
- Assets
- $1,296,220
- Liabilities
- $154,303
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DEREK MCGEE (PAST PRESIDENT)
- MARIEN HORNYAK (PRESIDENT)
- SANDY DUBAY (VICE PRESIDENT)
- KARA NORMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- KARA NORMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $153,048 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Downtown frederick partnership works to enhance, promote and preserve the vitality, livability amd diversity of downtown frederick, a national main street community.
What it reported doing in 2024
Organization formed to enhance, promote and preserve the vitality, livability and diversity of downtown frederick, Maryland. Current major programs include live downtown, work downtown, stay downtown, play downtown and connect downtown. Collectively partnership events, primarily first saturday, attracts about 160,000 people to downtown frederick each year. Alive @ 5 brought in over 17,500 people for fy25.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 95% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 87
- Transparency & Controls: 53
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 41
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 87.2%; rating input score 87
- Program expense ratio: 91.9%; rating input score 92
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.76 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 7th 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: 21.4%; rating input score 21; 13th 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 5.1%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.12; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 7%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 15.6% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 87.2% of revenue deployed · 91.9% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 18 of 18 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 19 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 21/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 41/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 55/100.