Rebuilding Broken Places CDC

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
562047776
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Goldsboro, NC, USA
Phone
9195819178
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Neighborhood Centers

Reported finances

Revenue
$903,872
Expenses
$734,455
Assets
$384,450
Liabilities
$178,078

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

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • Rev Sheryl Hinnant-Uzzell (Director)
  • Rev Tom Millay (Secretary)
  • Charles L Mitchell (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

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

Overview

Mission

RBPCDC is an organization committed to the development of economically distresses urban and rural communities in Wayne County. Its purpose is to raise the economic and social levels of low-income citizens and to provide long-term quality of life improvements.

What it reported doing in 2024

RPB Christian Academy and Childcare center provides early childhood education and training tochildren from 6 weeks to 12 years of age. Children are provided both educational and physicalactivities during the day. Students also receive three nutritious meals a day, GreenleafCommunity Garden and Kitchen provides gardening opportunities for families in the community. Theyare provided a raise bed to grow a variety of vegetables for themselves. It's our way of bringingfresh vegetables to the community. A job training program is provided as well as computerclasses.

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.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 68
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 70
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.9%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 86%; rating input score 86
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 75%; rating input score 75; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 29
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 18.7%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.52; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.46; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 6.1% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.5% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.9% of revenue deployed · 86% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 2 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $632K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 23 of 27 current checks pass · 4 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Fund balance restriction sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D land buildings reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule D other liabilities reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.