Harford Community Action Agency Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521306096
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Edgewood, MD, USA
Phone
4106129909
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,186,833
Expenses
$5,229,017
Assets
$957,181
Liabilities
$307,190

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

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIK ROBEY (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • SHERYL DAVIS KOHL (PRESIDENT)
  • PAMELA CRAIG (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • PAMELA CRAIG (CEO): $162,204 total reported compensation
  • GAIL HUNA (CFO): $110,390 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Hcaa is harford county's one-stop shop for services and programs to benefit low-income individuals and families in need. Hcaa provides emergency financial assistance to stabilize those in crisis and programs that help them become more economically self sufficient.

What it reported doing in 2024

Food and nutrition: the hcaa food pantry and food advocacy program provides emergency and supplemental food to hungry harford county families. Clients can visit the food pantry every 30 days to receive enough food to feed their family for 2-3 days. The pantry provides for food insecure households on site and via the mobile pantry unit to expand the reach of services around the county. Hcaa is also a redistribution organization for the Maryland food bank and distributed food to other local pantries, soup kitchens, residential recovery programs, and food shelters. Hcaa also provides snap application assistance.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 93.2%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 92.4%; rating input score 92
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: No; rating input score 0

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.2%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.4% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.7% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 93.2% of revenue deployed · 92.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $4.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $162K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 33 of 35 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 30/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Related-party transparency scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 52/100.