Capital Area Asset Building Corporation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 522002672
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2024191440
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Community, Neighborhood Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,179,542
- Expenses
- $3,444,356
- Assets
- $3,474,274
- Liabilities
- $2,392,224
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JOSEPH LEITMANN-SANTA CRUZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THROUGH JUNE 2024)
- KATHRYN STEPHENS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM JULY 2024)
- JOSEPH VAUGHAN (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- JOSEPH LEITMANN-SANTA CRUZ (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR THROUGH JUNE 2024): $180,723 total reported compensation
- NICOLE JONES (DIRECTOR OF MATCH SAVINGS): $111,110 total reported compensation
- KATHRYN STEPHENS (INTERIM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FROM JULY 2024): $92,500 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 create opportunities for low- and moderate-income individuals in the greater dc region to build financial security, savings, and wealth for the future.
What it reported doing in 2024
Financial education - caab provides credit counseling sessions, and sponsors seminars and workshops on a wide range of financial topics such as: setting financial goals, developing and managing a spending plan, choosing financial products and services, understanding credit, managing debt, saving for college, understanding the basics of investing, and saving for retirement. Caab requires that ida enrollees complete the money management 101 curriculum before matriculating into the matched savings program. Caab believes this will increase savings participation and rentention rates, as well as better inform savers on the usage of their assets.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
- Distribution model
- Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 77% for direct work, and 23% for grants.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of total spending goes to programs and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 79
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 16
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
- Program expense ratio: 57.6%; rating input score 58
- Fundraising efficiency: $95.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- 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; 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: -58%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.01; rating input score 37; 37th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.69; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 11.2%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6% per year; rating input score 100; 45th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.2% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 13.3% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 57.6% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $181K · 13 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $274K reported
- Consistency: 37 of 37 current checks pass
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 58/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.