Rapp at Home

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
475254378
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Washington, VA, USA
Phone
5409374663
Rating
83
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Senior Centers

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$291,247
Expenses
$280,442
Assets
$268,274
Liabilities
$21,414

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOYCE WENGER (PRESIDENT)
  • RALPH BATES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • VICTORIA LAING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • VICTORIA LAING (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $63,667 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Serving the Health, Safety and Social Needs of Rappahannock's Seniors

What it reported doing in 2024

Member services: volunteers assist to help members continue to live safely, comfortably, and independently in their own homes. This includes grocery and prescription pickup, as well as help with basic occasional chores such as yard work, moving furniture, jump-starting a car battery, or computer and other technical help, etc. Rapp at home also makes "friendly visits and phone calls to isolated, fragile, or lonely members, does home safety inspections and installs free medical alert devices. In 2024, rapp at home responded to approximately 565 individual requests for services to seniors. Expenses include recruitment and training of volunteers, marketing, supplies, volunteer insurance costs, background checks, cost of the 911 signs, and guardian alert that we install for free for our members.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

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 expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 90
  • Sustainability: 39
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.2%; rating input score 79
  • Program expense ratio: 81.5%; rating input score 82
  • Fundraising efficiency: $10.91 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

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: 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: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.7%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.96; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.08; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 22.7%; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 15.2% per year; rating input score 100; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 23.2% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 6 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 79.2% of revenue deployed · 81.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $229K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $64K · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 17/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 28/100.