Partners in Care Maryland Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521911806
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Pasadena, MD, USA
Phone
4105444800
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Public Foundations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,744,513
Expenses
$2,578,565
Assets
$3,238,989
Liabilities
$1,784,867

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

Leadership & pay

7 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • MANDY ARNOLD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • MANDY ARNOLD (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $237,175 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Partners in care, inc is dedicated to helping older adults live independently in their own homes and remain actively engaged in their communities.

What it reported doing in 2024

Partners in care Maryland, inc. Is a recognized leader in Maryland in delivering programs and services that promote the independence, safety, and well-being of older adults. Through a member-driven, volunteer-powered model, the organzation engages the time and talents of members, their families, and community volunteers to provide essential services in exchange for donated time. Core services include transportation, minor home repairs and handyman services, supportive task, care management, and membership services that enable older adults to age safely in place and remain actively engageed in their communities. Social engagement opportunities further reduce issolation and strengthen community opperations. During the fiscal year july 1, 2024, through june 30, 2025, more than 800 volunteers provided 5,810 trips and rides, 211 handyman/home repair jobs, 7,313 supportive service tasks, and 7,269 care management and membership service activities. In total, the organization facilitated 20,615 service exchanges that directly supported older adults in maintaining independence and community involvement.

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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 77
  • Transparency & Controls: 59
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 77.8%; rating input score 78
  • Program expense ratio: 82.6%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $16.45 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 80%; rating input score 80; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 6%; rating input score 54; 54th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.26; rating input score 45; 45th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.55; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 9.2%; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 8.6% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 77.8% of revenue deployed · 82.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $237K · 7 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 25 of 28 current checks pass · 3 findings to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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.

  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 54/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 54/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 45/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D expense reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D revenue reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 33/100.