Montgomery County Assoc for Blind

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
231365382
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Norristown, PA, USA
Phone
2156619800
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,095,408
Expenses
$693,436
Assets
$2,895,785
Liabilities
$23,642

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURIE STAPH (CEO)
  • BRYAN SCHEIDEMANTLE (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURIE STAPH (CEO): $216,903 total reported compensation
  • nancy black (CFO): $142,048 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To enhance the quality of life and independence of people coping with blindness and vision impairment through rehabilitation, education, support, and advocacy.

What it reported doing in 2025

The agency provides a comprehensive set of services to enhance the independence and quality of life of people coping with blindness or vision impairment through rehabilitation, education, support, and advocacy and to work toward the prevention of blindness. Programs provided under specialized services included support services such as mail reading, transportation with escort to medical appointments, shopping assistance and life skills education. Service hours also include access technology, life skills classes, & vocational rehab. The total number of clients for 2025 was 113. Total hours for all of these services were 1777. Some clients receive more than one service.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - Most voting board members are independent and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 61
  • Accountability: 96
  • Sustainability: 76
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 44%; rating input score 44
  • Program expense ratio: 69.4%; rating input score 69
  • Fundraising efficiency: $31.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 36.7%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.18; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 8.1%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 44% of revenue deployed · 69.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 15 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $481K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $217K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 32 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.