Enoch Pratt Free Library of Baltimore City

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
526001143
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Baltimore, MD, USA
Phone
4439844969
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$65,815,537
Expenses
$67,075,789
Assets
$137,924,422
Liabilities
$7,052,968

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

Leadership & pay

54 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Chad Helton (CEO)
  • Darcell Graham (Interim CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • Gordon Krabbe (COO): $329,279 total reported compensation
  • Darcell Graham (Interim CEO): $216,923 total reported compensation
  • CYNTHIA MONAHAN (Director Institutional Advancement): $196,614 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 Enoch Pratt Free Library is to empower enrich and enhance the quality of life for all through equitable access to information services and opportunity for all rich and poor without distinction of race or color.

What it reported doing in 2024

SLRC: State Library Resource Center SLRC: The program is responsible for the operation of the Central Library which also serves as the Maryland State Library Resource Center SLRC. Unlike other states Maryland does not have a state library to provide interlibrary loan reference state depository and other specialized services. SLRC circulated 399,921 physical items as well as a share of the 1.41 million in electronic material circulated. SLRC provided assistance on 267,704 reference questions and welcomed 284,986 visitors.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 87% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.5%; rating input score 94
  • Program expense ratio: 91.8%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: $46.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th 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: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.06; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.05; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.6%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.5% of revenue deployed · 91.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 37 of 37 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $61.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $329K · 54 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.6M reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 45 current checks pass · 6 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 11 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.

Key Signals

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

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • 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 FeesForServicesInvstMgmntFees 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 OtherEmployeeBenefits column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.