Reisterstown Improvement Association Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
273598201
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2017, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Reisterstown, MD, USA
Rating
65
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community Improvement, Capacity Building N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$245,010
Expenses
$237,716
Assets
$171,155
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CHARLIE HOPPA (PRESIDENT)
  • HERBERT WEISS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BINETTE (VICE PRESIDENT)

People named in this filing

  • CHARLIE HOPPA (PRESIDENT)
  • HERBERT WEISS (IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT)
  • DAVID BINETTE (VICE PRESIDENT)

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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

See schedule o

What it reported doing in 2025

The people of reisterstown have continued to improve this town fulfilling john reisters mission. The reisterstown improvement association strives to enhance the community by - providing for safety of our residents - sponsoring streetscape and clean up projects which beautify our neighborhood - encouraging property owners to preserve and to maintain the historic character of our community - organizing festivals, concerts and other events to bond with our neighbors and celebrate our home town - promoting economic growth for reisterstown businesses and the citizens - promoting the history of main street reisterstown

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 84% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 75% for direct work, and 25% for grants.

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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 47
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 59%; rating input score 59
  • Program expense ratio: 60.8%; rating input score 61
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 86.7%; rating input score 87; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 56.2%; rating input score 56; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.72; rating input score 33; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 22.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 17.8% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 20.9% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 59% of revenue deployed · 60.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $145K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 19 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 27 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • 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 59/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 56/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 43/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 33/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.