The Patuxent Partnership Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
522056982
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Lexington Park, MD, USA
Phone
3018661739
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
General Science

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,556,202
Expenses
$9,381,272
Assets
$4,269,517
Liabilities
$1,572,250

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

Leadership & pay

21 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SCOTT WHITE (PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • M BOTTS (IPA EMPLOYEE): $255,032 total reported compensation
  • D DESROCHERS (IPA EMPLOYEE): $252,746 total reported compensation
  • J BIANCO (IPA EMPLOYEE): $241,310 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 patuxent partnership is dedicated to the development of the technology community in southern Maryland by partnering government, academia, and the private sector.

What it reported doing in 2024

The patuxent partnership (tpp) is a non-profit member organization that works with government, industry and academia to advance education through stem (science, technology, engineering and math) based initiatives, to advance technology and technology transfer through programs and networking, the exchange of ideas, information and data related to technologies, and to increase opportunities workforce development through apprenticeships, internships, camps and other projects. Tpp fosters cooperation and collaboration with academia, private industry and government, bringing together the key economic drivers in southern Maryland to collaborate on growth for the betterment of all.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 97% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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 the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.9%; rating input score 87
  • Program expense ratio: 89%; rating input score 89
  • 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: 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 1.8%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.37; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 14.3%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.4% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -0.2% per year; rating input score 0; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 0.8% per year; rating input score 100; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 86.9% of revenue deployed · 89% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $8.4M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $255K · 21 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 26 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 20 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.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.