Garrett County Maryland Community Action Committee
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 520820662
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2024
- Location
- Oakland, MD, USA
- Phone
- 3013349431
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $16,297,730
- Expenses
- $16,715,079
- Assets
- $21,490,957
- Liabilities
- $11,516,026
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Highest reported compensation
- CHRIS MULLETT (EXECUTIVE DI): $170,752 total reported compensation
- DORA SHAHAN (V.P OF ADMIN): $105,818 total reported compensation
- REGINA GEARHART (DIRECTOR): $84,320 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
With a holistic approach and collaboration with partners, garrett county community action committee (gccac) inc. Empowers people by removing barriers and offering pathway opportunities to achieve aspirational goals through advocacy and services while building community capacity to bridge needs.
What it reported doing in 2024
Transports elderly and handicapped for general and special needs. Provides medical transportation to medicare card holders. 2,095,240. Provides shelter or other assistance in crisis situations partly under mandate or stewart-mckinney homeless act. 2,058,310. Provides economic development of the community. 423,249. Provides maintenance and rental property management to agency owned facilities and rental units. 1,219,346.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 88% 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
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and some related-organization disclosures are missing.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 35
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89.7%; rating input score 90
- Program expense ratio: 87.4%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Scored; rating input score 0
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -2.6%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.29; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.54; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.2%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 1.9% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.3% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 0.1% per year; rating input score 100; 10th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89.7% of revenue deployed · 87.4% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $14.6M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $171K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $3.3M reported
- Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 5 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 28 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.
Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 26/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.