Nami Montgomerty County (Md) Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521150412
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Rockville, MD, USA
Phone
3019495852
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health Association

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$685,032
Expenses
$688,303
Assets
$442,091
Liabilities
$142,568

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SHARON DIETSCHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JOSHUA WOOLDRIDGE (PRESIDENT)
  • AARON FELDMAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • SHARON DIETSCHE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $142,568 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 montgomery county builds communities of peers to provide support, education and advocacy for all affected by mental health conditions.

What it reported doing in 2024

At nami montgomery county md, inc., we envision a future where all people affected by mental health conditions live healthy, fulfilling lives supported by a community that cares. To reach this vision, we build communities of peers to provide support, education and advocacy for all affected by mental health conditions. Our communities of peers include people living with mental health conditions, their caregivers and families and allies. Nami montgomery county programs serve individuals, caregivers and allies of people living with mental health conditions in montgomery county. Our programs are always free to participants and led by trained volunteers with lived experience, either maintaining recovery with a mental illness or caring for a loved one living with mental illness continued on schedule o

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 75% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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 most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 39
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 42.8%; rating input score 43
  • Program expense ratio: 41.8%; rating input score 42
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.72 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 12; 12th 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: 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: -0.5%; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.64; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.32; rating input score 23; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.7%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 3.8% per year; rating input score 100; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.2% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 42.8% of revenue deployed · 41.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $288K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $143K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 12 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 12/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 34/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 23/100.