Object Management Group Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
043047994
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Milford, MA, USA
Phone
7814440404
Rating
31
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,126,768
Expenses
$5,148,932
Assets
$1,262,367
Liabilities
$4,740,773

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM HOFFMAN (CHAIRMAN AND): $354,281 total reported compensation
  • DAN ISSACS (VP/TECHNICAL): $243,822 total reported compensation
  • NANCY ZUKOWSKI (CHIEF OF MAR): $234,647 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The purpose of the organization is: to promote oject-oriented applications integration based on appropriate industry standards, a model- driven architectural approach to software design and the application of modeling and middleware technology to specific virtual markets; to foster building communities in modern computing techology; to promote frameworks for compatible and independent development of applications; to enable coordination among applications across heterogeneous networked systems in a multinational, multilingual environment; to adopt a core of specifications that comply with these frameworks and to promote their international market acceptance and use; to actively influence the future direction and development of these adopted specifications; and to foster the development of tools and applications that conform to these specifications and to provide a mechanism for certifying compliance with adopted specifications.

What it reported doing in 2024

The organization develops and promotes standards for a heterogeneous operating environment based upon object oriented programming. Over 440 members are served.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 100% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 46
  • Accountability: 83
  • Sustainability: 18
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Grant itemization coverage: Scored; rating input score 0
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 94.1%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -0.4%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.25; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 3.76; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 24.5%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -7.8% per year; rating input score 0; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 17 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $354K · 22 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $251K reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 13 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes foreign activity and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Foreign activity oversight scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 8/100.