Fort Worth Chamber Development Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 202354924
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
- Location
- Fort Worth, TX, United States
- Phone
- 8173362491
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $283,720
- Expenses
- $261,226
- Assets
- $156,039
- Liabilities
- $2,100
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
15 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- STEVE MONTGOMERY (CHAMBER PRESIDENT & CEO, P)
Highest reported compensation
- STEVE MONTGOMERY (CHAMBER PRESIDENT & CEO, P): $359,270 total reported compensation
- PATRICIA STEELMAN (ASSISTANT SEC/TREAS): $241,664 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 Development Foundation was organized to operate exclusively for charitable, educational, scientific, and literary purposes relating to the City of Fort Worth, to lessen the burdens of the Fort Worth local government with respect to matters of economic development. Bring the Fort Worth region together to identify issues, solve problems and help align resources resulting in a stronger business climate and greater economic prosperity for all. The mission of the FWC Foundation, a 501 C3 non-profit organization, is to raise, manage, and render financial support for key community initiatives, as identified through the Fort Worth Chamber's Strategic planning process. The FWC Foundation was incorporated on January 22, 1982 to receive and administer funds used exclusively for public education, crime reduction, beautification, and strategic community planning. With a Foundation Board of...
What it reported doing in 2024
Strategic plans for benefitting the city of fort worth.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 72% of its reported program spending out as grants.
The verdict
SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 84
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 82
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 92.1%; rating input score 92
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: Fail
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 7.9%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.6; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.7%; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 7.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 46th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 1 operating location identified
- Where the money goes: 92.1% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 13 of 14 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $261K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $359K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 15 of 15 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 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: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 4 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.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 9 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 23/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 43/100.