Ellicott City Historic District Partnership LLC

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521183660
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Ellicott City, MD, USA
Phone
4432402060
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$355,074
Expenses
$400,127
Assets
$157,060
Liabilities
$29,481

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TAMI SHAW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (START 11/1/25))
  • JULIA SANGER (PRESIDENT)
  • ALISON BURKOWSKE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TAMI SHAW (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (START 11/1/25)): $13,846 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The ellicott city partnership is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization that works to preserve the heritage and vitality of historic ellicott city, md while creating and enhancing economic growth.

What it reported doing in 2025

The ecp is a 501(c)3 organization, promoting and supporting small businesses in the historic district of ellicott city, md. Our leadership aims to preserve and grow the cultural identity of our neighborhood while supporting economic development efforts. We partner with non-profit and civic partners, grantors, donors, sponsors, and volunteers to provide year-round event programming and business support services. The ecp became an accredited main street america community in 2014 and operates under the main street Maryland state coordinating program for the the national main street center, a subsidiary of the national trust for historic preservation.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 78% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 55% for direct work, and 45% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 73
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 80.9%; rating input score 81
  • Program expense ratio: 71.8%; rating input score 72
  • Fundraising efficiency: $9.97 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -12.7%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.39; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.5%; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -8.4% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7.7% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 1% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 80.9% of revenue deployed · 71.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $287K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $14K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 37/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 32/100.