Traffic Marking Manufacturers Alliance Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
933294525
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Mount Olive, NC, USA
Phone
5407521498
Rating
41
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$282,225
Expenses
$293,684
Assets
$22,761
Liabilities
$5,000

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

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ROBERT N DINGESS (PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • ROBERT N DINGESS (PRESIDENT)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

To promote the best interests of pavement marking material and equipment manufacturing companies by establishing a central organization through which lawful undertakings of the industry may be conducted effectively by cooperative effort.

What it reported doing in 2024

Mercer strategic alliance was contracted with to manage the association and represent it at industry meetings. Represented the industry at 12 different industry conferences and presented on standards proposals designed to enhance road marking's contribution to improving roadway safety. Educated hundreds of major influencers on the benefits of well-maintained road markings to improve road safety and support machine vision active safety technologies. Participated in the standards development process for highway and automotive industry standards: 1) trb annual meeting, Washington, dc, ncutcd annual and midyear meeting, atssa annual meeting, automotive safety council annual meeting, tmma board and annual meeting, intertraffic rai, global ncap meeting, autosens USA, its policy summit, autosens europe 2024, asam ev international conference.

Operating model

Revenue model
Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
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

MIXED - 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: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • 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: -4.1%; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.08; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.22; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 10 of 11 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 31/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.