The Maryland Asphalt Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
520635500
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Glen Burnie, MD, USA
Phone
4107612160
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$855,909
Expenses
$746,603
Assets
$1,179,055
Liabilities
$13,985

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

Leadership & pay

33 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TIM SMITH (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • TIM SMITH (PRESIDENT): $265,661 total reported compensation
  • G MARSHALL KLINEFLTER (PAST PRESIDE): $13,399 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To educate the paving industry through seminars and conferences. To improve and extend the use of asphalt in paving roads. To render information on the asphalt and paving industry to all interested parties.

What it reported doing in 2024

In partnership with the Maryland department of transportation state highway administration (mdot sha), the Maryland asphalt association (maa) offers comprehensive, self-paced online training for hot mix asphalt (hma) field technician certification, based on current state specifications. Registrants receive access to the training, as well as a supplemental manual. They work through 13 training modules, followed by a review of the coursework. Upon passing the online review, they may then register for and take the certification exam, given by mdot sha. The maa and mdot sha also offer once-yearly hma plant technician training (superpave level ii). For this, the maa collects registration on behalf of the mdot sha and secures the instructor.

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

REVIEW - 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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 60

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: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • 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: 12.8%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.58; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 37.4%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 2.8% per year; rating input score 100; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 31 of 31 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $266K · 33 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 11 of 12 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2010 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 57/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 4/100.