Metropolitan Tennis & Education Group

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
461950434
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2018
Forms available
Form 990 2018
Location
Laurel, MD, USA
Phone
2406766522
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Amateur Sports

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$402,045
Expenses
$368,073
Assets
$35,463
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JERI INGRAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • FRANCINE MCLEOD (PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID ALEXANDER (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JERI INGRAM (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $49,000 total reported compensation
  • MALCOLM GREENE (TENNIS DIRECTOR): $26,000 total reported compensation
  • SHARON INGRAM (SECRETARY): $7,200 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2018. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Mteg is committed to providing world class tennis programming and educational opportunities while engaging individuals from diverse backgrounds.

What it reported doing in 2018

Metropolitan Tennis & Education Group Winter Programming offers courses or students who want to learn the correct fundamentals and techniques of tennis. All strokes will be taught on age appropriate equipment and will move students through the appropriate pipeline of services as well as enhance the games of experienced players. Our program is designed for tennis students with the goals of growing their games to the next level. We provide step by step instruction that focuses on developing and maintaining excellence that will students for competitive play.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 86% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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 the required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 63
  • Transparency & Controls: 68
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 57.3%; rating input score 57
  • Program expense ratio: 62.6%; rating input score 63
  • Fundraising efficiency: $217.53 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90.9%; rating input score 91; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 8.4%; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.3%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 57.3% of revenue deployed · 62.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 8 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $57K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $49K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 19 of 20 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 57/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 6/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.