Margate Business Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
223523842
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Margate, NJ, USA
Phone
6098221129
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Reported finances

Revenue
$367,350
Expenses
$359,371
Assets
$180,048
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ED BERGER (PRESIDENT)
  • KAREN SHERMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • ANNA MARIA BLESCIA-COURTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • ANNA MARIA BLESCIA-COURTER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $76,667 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the economic and physical revitalization and welfare of the businesses and bay district of margate including the advancement of the margate community through local scholarships, events to promote family activities and providing assistance to local governments and organizations situated in the city of margate, county of atlantic and state of New Jersey.

What it reported doing in 2024

Margate fall funfest, thrilling thursdays, beachstock, and other recreational events to attract tourists to margate city bay district and for the benefit of margate business association, daniel and maria walters scholaship foundation, the mba children's scholarship fund and the gilda's club of south jersey.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 - A large share of total spending goes to programs and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 61
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 60%; rating input score 60
  • Fundraising efficiency: $55.69 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 33.5%; rating input score 33; 40th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 2.2%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.7% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -0% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 60% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $216K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $77K · 13 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 25 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 59/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.