American Brotherhood for the Blind
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521192529
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2020–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025
- Location
- Baltimore, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4106599315
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Blind/Visually Impaired Centers
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $6,501,399
- Expenses
- $4,601,158
- Assets
- $47,070,574
- Liabilities
- $330,943
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- BARBARA LOOS (PRESIDENT)
- JULIE DEDEN (FIRST VICE PRESIDENT)
- SANDRA HALVERSON (SECOND VICE PRESIDENT)
- MARK RICCOBONO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- MARC MAURER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- MARK RICCOBONO (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $254,130 total reported compensation
- MARC MAURER (FORMER EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $151,701 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Integrating the blind into society
What it reported doing in 2025
Specialized programs and services - conducted and participated in activities to eliminate massive systemic barriers to full participation by blind individuals embedded in education; employment; transportation; governmental services; commerce; recreation; housing; retail establishments; medical facilities; web-based and automated kiosk and touch-screen based information services; and all other forms of exclusion based on non-visually accessible information systems, devices, and tools and upon misunderstandings of the true nature of the problems caused by lack of eyesight and the resultant low expectations. These activities are multifaceted and include: direct services to blind individuals; support for parents of blind children; massive, broad-based communications to and interaction with individuals, governmental, educational, cultural, and business entities aimed at making widespread and permanent changes to public perceptions about blindness; leadership training; support for self-advocacy and self-organization groups; legal action to enforce existing laws and governmental regulations; support for creation and distribution of new tactile methods for access to information; efforts to locate blind people needing assistance; and collaboration with other entities working toward similar goals. All blind persons and persons with visual disabilities in the united states (over 8.5 million as reported by the u.s. Census department) are potentially benefitted by these activities.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 83% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and some filed totals do not add up.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 73
- Transparency & Controls: 76
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 83.6%; rating input score 84
- Program expense ratio: 76.1%; rating input score 76
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.06 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th 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: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 99.4%; rating input score 99; 44th 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: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- 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: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 29.2%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.23; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.8%; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 0.5% per year; rating input score 100; 14th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 29th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 83.6% of revenue deployed · 76.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.5M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $254K · 14 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $363K reported
- Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 11/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 37/100.