Montgomery Community Action Committee & Community Dev Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
636054097
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Montgomery, AL, USA
Phone
3342633474
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Human Service Organizations

Reported finances

Revenue
$22,624,713
Expenses
$22,805,961
Assets
$9,623,593
Liabilities
$4,914,244

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

Leadership & pay

27 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Benjamin Jones (Chief Executive Officer)

Highest reported compensation

  • Benjamin Jones (Chief Executive Officer): $207,444 total reported compensation
  • RWPringle (Deputy Director): $131,538 total reported compensation
  • Lycurgus T Hatcher (Head Start Director): $112,533 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Montgomery community action committee and community development corporation, inc. Combats and advocates against poverty through social services and programs which assist low-income citizens to become self-sufficient in the river region.

What it reported doing in 2024

The Agency administered heating and cooling assistance to low income Montgomery-area residents. These programs helped eligible households meet essential home energy needs and reduce the risk of utility disconnection

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 82% 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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.5%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 43rd 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.8%; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.51; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.1% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.5% of revenue deployed · 90.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 24 of 24 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $20.7M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $207K · 27 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 3 contractors listed · $666K reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 27/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.