Old Takoma Business Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
753131452
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2013
Location
Takoma Park, MD, USA
Phone
3018916789
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$589,831
Expenses
$297,545
Assets
$714,449
Liabilities
$1,785

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • LAURA BARCLAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • CAROLINA MCCANDLESS (PRESIDENT)
  • JEFF TRUNZO (VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • LAURA BARCLAY (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $104,500 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Bring together businesses, residents, and community organizations to build and sustain a vibrant commerical district and preserve the neighborhoods rich history.(continued in schedule o)

What it reported doing in 2024

Lessening the burdens of the city of takoma park, md and Washington, d.c. By administering takoma parks main street Maryland program and furthering the purpose of that program by working with residents, community organizations, and businesses to improve the economy, appearance, and image of the historical downtown commercial and cultural district in takoma park, md and the takoma neighborhood in Washington, d.c. Through cultural events (dinky line, takoma flea market, takoma trukgarten, takoma pride, takoma park street festival, pajamarama and holiday market, tkpk gift market and takoma cocoa crawl) , beautification (gardening at takoma community triangle park) and support to small, local businesses (distributed over 50,000 in safety microgrants to businesses)

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 67% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

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 the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 58
  • Transparency & Controls: 63
  • Accountability: 71
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 40.5%; rating input score 41
  • Program expense ratio: 79.3%; rating input score 79
  • Fundraising efficiency: $77.79 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 83.3%; rating input score 83; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 15.7%; rating input score 16; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 25th 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: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • 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: 49.6%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.4; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.1%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.9% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 13% per year; rating input score 100; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 40.5% of revenue deployed · 79.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $236K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $104K · 16 people listed
  • Consistency: 28 of 30 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
  • Filing history: 9 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 41/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation 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 5/100.