Frederick County Association of Recreation Councils
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522194775
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2011
- Location
- Urbana, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3018010724
- Rating
- 60
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Fairs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $708,177
- Expenses
- $244,182
- Assets
- $20,333
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
12 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Brent Newman (President)
People named in this filing
- Abu Sesay (VP Urbana Rec Council)
- Aisia Hartford (Nomination Chair)
- Brent Newman (President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The mission of Urbana Recreation Council is to provide well-rounded recreational opportunities to Urbana residents by developing, planning, and offering programs that meet the residents needs while complementing exiting programs within the area.
What it reported doing in 2024
Urbana Baseball Softball - The Urbana Baseball and Softball program provides Urbana area youth, adults, and families with organized t-ball, baseball, and softball opportunities. An emphasis is placed on program participation at both the recreation and travel (club) level, ongoing skill development, and sportsmanship. The program is delivered through a network of volunteers that provide coaching, administrative support, and all other necessary services. Programs serve youth in elementary school through high school and adults (recreational softball only).
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Other-operating. 69% of the money available for current operations came from other operating revenue.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 52
- Transparency & Controls: 55
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 66
- Growth: 40
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 34.5%; rating input score 34
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 12th 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: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- 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: 65.5%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -10.9% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 12.9% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -38.7% per year; rating input score 0; 1st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 34.5% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $739K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 12 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 36 of 37 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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: Mission deployment rate scored 34/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.