Rebuilding Together- Anne Arundel
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 521773114
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2014–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2013
- Location
- Severna Park, MD, USA
- Phone
- 4109239992
- Rating
- 74
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Grantmaking Foundations N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $167,609
- Expenses
- $148,200
- Assets
- $108,267
- Liabilities
- $97,534
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DONNY JAMES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
- LAURA CECALA (PRESIDENT)
Highest reported compensation
- DONNY JAMES (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $50,000 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Work with the community to rehabilitate the houses of low income homeowners, particularly the elderly and disabled. Since inception, rtaac has partnered with tens of thousands of volunteers to complete over 680 major home renovations, with a market value of 13m in repairs.
What it reported doing in 2025
Homeowner rehab renovating homes of those in need. Projects have a technically skilled house captain managing the scope and its completion. Typical projects involve a crew of 30 volunteers working a saturday and completing the entire scope in one day. Paid vendors roofers, electricians, plumbers, etc accomplish their scope beforehand.eligible homeowners must own their own home in anne arundel county, md, be low income on average, 80 of the clients are at less than 30 ami and be unable to complete the work themselves. Skilled volunteers meet the homeowner, assess the project, and submit a written report to the house selection committee. The board of directors votes on the projects for selection. Rtaac receives client referrals from the countys cdc, dept of aging, Maryland 211, public schools, hospitals, and case managers.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 64% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 57
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 39
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 50%; rating input score 50
- Program expense ratio: 56.5%; rating input score 57
- Fundraising efficiency: $326.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 93; 93rd 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; 64th 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: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 11.6%; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.73; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 33.7%; rating input score 9; 9th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 5.1% per year; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 8.1% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 9.3% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 50% of revenue deployed · 56.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $84K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $50K · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2014 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 50/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 59/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 4/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 9/100.