Technology Council of Maryland
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 204950778
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Rockville, MD, USA
- Phone
- 2402434026
- Rating confidence
- Limited
- Sector
- Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $4,821,639
- Expenses
- $4,969,104
- Assets
- $3,958,539
- Liabilities
- $3,580,011
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
47 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- KELLY SCHULZ (CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- KELLY SCHULZ (CEO): $287,596 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE FERRONE (COO): $209,741 total reported compensation
- WENDY WORM (VP MARKETING AND EVENTS): $152,723 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
At the Maryland tech council, we believe in saving lives, securing our nation and improving the quality of life through innovation. We support our member companies who are driving innovation through advocacy, education, workforce development, (continued on schedule o)cost savings and connecting entrepreneurial minds.
What it reported doing in 2024
The organization recognized one of the most important issues to life science and technology businesses in Maryland was a talented and educated workforce. Grants from the federal and Maryland state governments, and financial support from biopharma industries, allowed the initiation of the biohub Maryland. This project will expand Maryland's global life sciences by creating a highly skilled biopharma manufacturing workforce. The program creates career pathways for marylanders of all educational backgrounds. This program has also created a task force which includes industry leaders, academia, government, and non-profit organizations to create a sustainable workforce development solutions "for the industry, by the industry".
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
- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
- Transparency & Controls: 80
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 23
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: Limited
- Program expense ratio: Limited
- 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: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Fail
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -3.1%; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.8; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: 11.6% per year; rating input score 100; 73rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 20% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
- Governance: 35 of 35 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
- Leadership: top reported pay $288K · 47 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $958K reported
- Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, executive pay, and related organizations
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 24/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 7/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 18/100.