Montgomery Bar Association

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
230888123
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Norristown, PA, USA
Phone
6102799660
Rating
67
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,803,078
Expenses
$1,999,404
Assets
$2,804,639
Liabilities
$569,343

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DENISE VICARIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • LISA A SHEARMAN (PRESIDENT)
  • SETH D WILSON (PRESIDENT ELECT)
  • JUSTIN BAYER (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • COLIN J O' BOYLE (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • DENISE VICARIO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $185,131 total reported compensation
  • JAMES MATHIAS (DIRECTOR MARKETING): $119,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of the montgomery bar association is to promote professional excellence, facilitate access to justice and protect the integrity of hte legal system through service to our members and community. Montgomery bar association embraces its responsibility to provide access to justice for all, empower members to exhibit the highest ethical conduct, civility, and technical competence, and work cooperatively with the judiciary in addressing emerging legal issues in montgomery county.

What it reported doing in 2024

Programs and events - meeting, seminars, dinners, and other events for members supervised by various committees of the association

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 94% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 48% for direct work, 3% for grants, and 49% for member benefits.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and program spending has declined or grown slowly.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 56
  • Transparency & Controls: 77
  • Accountability: 98
  • Sustainability: 30
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 64.8%; rating input score 65
  • Program expense ratio: 59.1%; rating input score 59
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 96.2%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -10.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.4; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.2; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.2%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -5.2% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -4.2% per year; rating input score 0; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -3% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 64.8% of revenue deployed · 59.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 25 of 26 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $1.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $185K · 27 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 35 of 35 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2015 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
  • 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: Program expense ratio scored 59/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 16/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 54/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 31/100.