Arundel Community Development Services, Inc.

Legal name: Arundel Community Development Services Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521817557
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Annapolis, MD, USA
Phone
4102227600
Rating
85
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Low-Income & Subsidized Rental Housing

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$28,939,760
Expenses
$28,041,733
Assets
$34,659,789
Liabilities
$26,763,367

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIN S KARPEWICZ (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN S KARPEWICZ (CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER): $262,857 total reported compensation
  • CHAUNCEY HALL (CHIEF PROGRAM OFFICER): $191,906 total reported compensation
  • ELIZABETH BRUSH (CHIEF PLANNING DIRECTOR): $166,573 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Our mission is to: revitalize declining neighborhoods through the targeting of joint public and private investment; preserve and increase the supply of affordable rental housing through new development and redevelopment of existing units; promote healthy homeownership through financial support, homebuyer education and the rehabilitation and construction of affordable units;.

What it reported doing in 2024

Administer programs which involve the development and/or redevelopment of affordable rental and homeownership properties/projects for purposes of serving income eligible households.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 91% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 83
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 43
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 90.8%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 93.7%; rating input score 94
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • 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: 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; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 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: Pass
    • 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 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.24; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.77; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 4.4%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 16.2% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 4 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 90.8% of revenue deployed · 93.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $26.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $263K · 22 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $4M reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 113 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 105 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.

  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 15/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.