Rappahannock Casa Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541600702
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Fredericksburg, VA, USA
Phone
5407106199
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Civil Rights

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$254,214
Expenses
$243,116
Assets
$271,567
Liabilities
$47,674

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BARBARA MILLER-RICHARDS (PRESIDENT)
  • TERI CORTESE-FUSARO (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • EDITH M EVANS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • EDITH M EVANS (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $61,360 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The mission of rappahannock casa is to advocate for abused and neglected children to grow up in safe permanent homes where they have the opportunity to thrive.

What it reported doing in 2024

The primary program is to train and support volunteers who are appointed by the courts to advocate for abused and neglected children in court matters.46 volunteers (including board members) contributed to casa in the fiscal year that ended june 30, 2025. Our casa served 117 kids, donating 4,101 hours of their time. We submitted 82 court reports with recommendations about children. Judges gave consideration to 74% of our recommendation, and of those, they incorporated 96% into their court orders. (of our total recommendations, they incorporated 71% into their court orders).

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 84
  • Transparency & Controls: 86
  • Accountability: 78
  • Sustainability: 40
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 85.6%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 89.5%; rating input score 89
  • Fundraising efficiency: $19.17 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 57; 57th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 25th 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: 88.9%; rating input score 89; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 4.4%; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.12; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 25.2%; rating input score 14; 14th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.5% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -1% per year; rating input score 0; 21st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 85.6% of revenue deployed · 89.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $217K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $61K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 24 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 57/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 49/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 43/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 14/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 21/100.