Maryland Energy Conservation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521928626
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Fallston, MD, USA
Phone
4108792283
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Energy Resources Conservation and Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$45,069
Expenses
$530,572
Assets
$103,330
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • THOMAS KENNY (PRESIDENT)
  • ARLENE MARCONI (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • THOMAS KENNY (PRESIDENT): $89,072 total reported compensation
  • CHRISTINE FORMAN (SECRETARY): $82,016 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To help eligible low-income households through the installation of energy conservation materials in their dwelling units.

What it reported doing in 2015

Maryland energy conservation, inc. Provides energy conservation service and education to households of low income families as determined eligible by the Maryland energy assistance program.these services include(but are not limited to)educating clients about the proper use of heating and cooling systems and the dangers of lead paint and mold in the home. The home will receive an energy audit to determine which measures are appropriate to reduce the cost of heating the home. When all work is complete, a quality contril inspection will be done. If the work was done properly, an invoice is then sent to the state of Maryland department of housing and community development for reimbursement. The average cost is $4000. The average savings in heating costs is approximately 30%. The homeowner also receives a lead paint pamphlet and energy savers pamphlet.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 53
  • Sustainability: 14
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 95.2%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 60%; rating input score 60; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 44
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1,077.2%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.19; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 32.2%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -28.9% per year; rating input score 0; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -69.3% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.9% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 95.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 5 board members independent · 4 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $505K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $89K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 23 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.