Mobility Management Partners Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
270523497
IRS 990 coverage
2016–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Camarillo, CA, USA
Phone
8056305693
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public, Society Benefit N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,702,397
Expenses
$2,521,709
Assets
$1,379,938
Liabilities
$174,420

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Charles Devlin (Former Executive Director)
  • Patricia Avila (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Patricia Avila (Executive Director): $148,940 total reported compensation
  • Sandra Trotter (Chief Financial Officer): $62,800 total reported compensation
  • Charles Devlin (Former Executive Director): $6,923 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Planning for and the operation of intelligent transportation technologies including GIS mapping, GPS, coordinated vehicle scheduling and monitoring, and providing

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide one-stop call center, travel training, travel coordination and trip planning, and operation of intelligent transportation technologies.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% 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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 67
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.3%; rating input score 84
  • Program expense ratio: 90.3%; rating input score 90
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 75%; rating input score 75; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 56
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: 6.7%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.55; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.13; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.2%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 16.5% per year; rating input score 100; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.3% of revenue deployed · 90.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 4 board members independent · 5 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $149K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 29 of 29 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2016 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 18/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 44/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 49/100.
  • Review — Grant Readiness: California registration: this organization could not be resolved against the register, so the check is unfinished.