Massb Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261192752
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-N 2012
Location
Annapolis, MD, USA
Phone
4437561116
Rating
58
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$321,138
Expenses
$150,157
Assets
$874,454
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Tony Wohlers (CEO / Trustee)
  • Melissa Teitelbaum (President)
  • Renita Alexander (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Nathanial Poerio (Assistant Treasurer / Trustee): $31,992 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The MASSB Foundation provides financial support for social service programs that complement the efforts of Maryland based departments of social services by funding programs that: protect at-risk children or adults, and preserve families. MASSB Foundation supports children or adults in many ways which include: emergency assistance, job training/counseling, family support focused on child protection, family reunification, and parental/guardian education and support. See Program Service Accomplishments for more details.

What it reported doing in 2025

During 2025 the organization administered $8,338.37 in grants for Growth and Opportunity programs for individuals in Kent County, Queen Anne's County, Howard County and Charles County. Grants covered expenses for Angel Tree Gifts, Transportations passes, Car repairs / insurance / payments, clothing / shoes for work, Customer incentive program (w/DSS), Driver's ED for teens and adults, education /job training / licenses, Enrichment programs for children, Government docs (birth certificates), Holiday meals, school supplies, sports (uniforms, fee, etc), Summer Camp for at-risk youth, Support for Family service centers, support provided to senior centers. More than 300 individuals were assisted via these programs.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 98% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

MIXED - A large share of total spending goes to programs and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing reports few safeguards for money sent abroad.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 47
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 43.8%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 84.4%; rating input score 84
  • Fundraising efficiency: $737.6 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th 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; 64th 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: NotApplicable
    • 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: 53.2%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.82; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 21.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -15.1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -10.2% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 43.8% of revenue deployed · 84.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $127K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $32K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 40 of 42 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, foreign activity, and grants
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 44/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.