Nami Maryland Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521295484
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Columbia, MD, USA
Phone
4108848691
Rating
79
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,124,335
Expenses
$938,877
Assets
$911,767
Liabilities
$343,518

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TON GARDENIERS (1ST VICE-PRESIDENT)
  • SHAREESE STRONG (2ND VICE PRESIDENT(6/1-12/31))
  • STUART TENHOOR (2ND VICE PRESIDENT(4/1-6/1))
  • DENISE EVANS (PRESIDENT)
  • KATHRYN S FARINHOLT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • KATHRYN S FARINHOLT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $118,984 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Nami Maryland, inc. (the organization) (nami Maryland), incorporated in the state of Maryland, is the state organization for the national alliance on mental illness (nami). Nami Maryland is a grassroots organization dedicated to education, support, and advocacy for persons with mental illnesses, their families, and the wider community. Our mission is to improve the quality of life for individuals with mental illnesses and their families.the values that inform all nami actions include: empowerment of individuals with mental illness and their families. Experts for the community: individuals with mental illness and their families are the experts to improve systems and to provide community outreach and peer education. Effective peer-based, recovery-focused and family-oriented programming and services. Volunteers and community partners: we leverage the power and networks of volunteers and community partners to spread nami's message.

What it reported doing in 2024

Peer education and peer support: nami Maryland offers effective, free peer education and support programs directly, and in collaboration with local nami affiliates and delivered at the local level. These programs are best practice education courses and support groups provided for and by peers. Families are trained to support other families, and individuals with mental illness are trained to support other individuals.

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 52
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Program expense ratio: 75.6%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $7.54 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.5%; rating input score 72; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.97; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.38; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 12.7%; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 63.7% of revenue deployed · 75.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $710K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $119K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 29/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 29/100.