National Congress of Black Women Prince Georges County Maryland Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
851551897
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2021–2025
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2025
Location
Clinton, MD, USA
Rating
45
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Higher Education Institutions

Reported finances

Revenue
$6,879
Expenses
$2,997
Assets
$11,378

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Dr Evelyn Y Jenkins (President NCBW-PGCMD)

People named in this filing

  • Angela Jackson (Chair Board of Directors)
  • Dorshawn Marshall (NCBW-PGCMD Board of Directors)
  • Michelle Walker (Corresponding Secretary NCBW-PGCMD Board of Directors)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

The National Congress of Black Women - Prince Georges County Maryland Inc. s specific purpose is: to improve the educational economic social and political status of Black women and their families; to serve as a nonpartisan voice and instrument for the election appointment and participation of Black women in the educational economic social and political arenas in Prince Georges County Maryland.

What it reported doing in 2025

Annual Brunch Dignitaries Sponsorship

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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 16
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 73
  • Growth: 20

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 10.9%; rating input score 11
  • Program expense ratio: 25%; rating input score 25

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 56.4%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.8; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -30.4% per year; rating input score 0; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -2.2% per year; rating input score 0; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 18.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 10.9% of revenue deployed · 25% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $750 in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 2 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2021 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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: Mission deployment rate scored 11/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.