Mount Vernon Springfield Chamber of Commerce

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546052822
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Alexandria, VA, USA
Phone
7033606925
Rating
55
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$250,842
Expenses
$255,167
Assets
$128,249
Liabilities
$5,268

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

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Holly H Dougherty (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Holly H Dougherty (Executive Director): $96,000 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 promote a successful business climate in the mount vernon springfild area of fairfax county, va

What it reported doing in 2025

The objective of the Mount Vernon Springfield Chamber of Commerce is: To formulate and advocate business positions on critical issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - Most voting board members are independent and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 51
  • Accountability: 74
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 51.9%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 51.1%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 0%; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -1.7%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.5; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.6%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.4% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 14% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 51.9% of revenue deployed · 51.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 23 of 23 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $96K · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 24 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 52/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part IX CompCurrentOfficersDirectors column sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.