Rebuilding Together Duneland Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
352006299
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024
Location
Chesterton, IN, USA
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$67,662
Expenses
$56,266
Assets
$47,374

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Sam Alie (President)
  • Melissa Jaeger (Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Sam Alie (President)
  • Scott Mundell (Treasurer)
  • Chris Larr (Secretary)

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

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

Overview

Mission

Provide necessary repairs for homes of senior and low-income homeowners including electrical plumbing roofing and carpentry services at no cost to the homeowner. We also provide volunteers and supervision of community projects.

What it reported doing in 2024

Rebuilding Together Duneland provided services to 7 homes in the community that were in need of repairs and maintenance that the current homeowner was unable to do or pay for someone to. Repairs included plumbing roof repairs electrical work and general carpentry. Rebuilding Together Duneland provided the materials and labor for these projects at no cost to the homeowner. This service not only benefits the homeowner but impacts their neighbors neighborhood as well,

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 46
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 16.8%; rating input score 70; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.84; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.3%; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 37.6% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.7% per year; rating input score 0; 25th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 5 of 5 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 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.

  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 10/100.