Rewiring America
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 932830316
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2023–2024
- Official website data refreshed
- Sep 2026
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Washington, DC, USA
- Phone
- 2025052072
- Rating
- 78
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Energy Resources Conservation and Development
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $37,624,309
- Expenses
- $22,704,316
- Assets
- $17,408,127
- Liabilities
- $2,755,634
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
14 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- ARI MATUSIAK (FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, CEO)
Highest reported compensation
- ARI MATUSIAK (FOUNDER, PRESIDENT, CEO): $519,172 total reported compensation
- CAMMIE CROFT (VP STRATEGIC OPERATIONS): $167,282 total reported compensation
- TOM MERCER (VP PRODUCT): $164,041 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Rewiring America puts American households at the center of an affordable, resilient, all-electric future.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rewiring america, inc. And its affiliate rewiring community investment fund, inc. (rcif) advanced their mission to lower american's energy costs by accelerating energy efficiency upgrades and expanding consumer education and resources to support households looking to pursue those improvements; strengthening partnerships and collaboration with national, regional, and local community-based organizations; and developing programs and initiatives with manufacturers, distributors, and local contractors and installers to help lower upfront costs and energy bills for households.developed consumer education tools and resourcesthe organization and its affiliate rcif produced digital tools leveraged by over 200,000 household users, enabling homeowners to plan for energy efficiency upgrades while taking advantage of available public cost-reduction incentives and rebates. Those tools included an incentive calculator, a personal planner tool, and a savings identification tool. The organization and its affiliate rcif launched consumer engagement campaigns to connect residents with these tools, and administered nationally-available education and training through why electrify courses and workshops. Strengthened community-based and state partnerships the organization and its affiliate rcif delivered the coaches program, a free, four-week training and home energy efficiency upgrade program. The organization trained 990 coaches and enabled the creation of peer coaching groups.the organization partnered with local community organizations and workforce partners on philanthropically-supported community demonstration projects in five locations, supporting communities that had been left behind with home energy efficiency installations that can drive down ongoing costs through efficient appliances, weatherization, and other efficiency remediation upgrades.the organization provided free technical analyses to state and local governments to aid them in applying for funding to help their constituents access energy efficiency upgrades. Additionally, the organization provided free technical analyses to partner organizations in order to deliver lower energy bills for households through better designed utility programs and customer rates. Research and data analysisthe organization published multiple reports and educational tools, including a "machine counter" showing a real-time estimate of the number of modernized machines installed in american households, major research reports on the health benefits of upgraded homes and the jobs potential of widespread energy efficiency upgrades, as well as additional data, reports and fact sheets on the available incentives, and guides to home energy efficiency upgrades. Launched private sector partnerships to lower costs the organization and its affiliate rcif issued rfps and negotiated partnerships with both original equipment manufacturers to lower equipment and labor costs, and with financial institutions to design lending programs to make upgrades more affordable for american households. The organization facilitated industry collaboration through the launch of a working group dedicated to sourcing, structuring and maintaining a comprehensive, free and open data set of energy efficiency incentives and rebates available to households.
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 program-spending lines do not add up, so the filing cannot show reliably whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.
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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 59
- Transparency & Controls: 92
- Accountability: 92
- Sustainability: 63
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 45.5%; rating input score 45
- Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $59.67 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 8th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
- Compensation committee: Pass
- Independent consultant: Pass
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Pass
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: Pass
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 39.7%; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.77; rating input score 27; 27th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 6.5%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 193.8% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 186.2% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site
- Where the money goes: 45.5% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 6 of 7 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $17.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $519K · 14 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $881K reported
- Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 2 filing years from 2023 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 8 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 2 filed related-organization links
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 45/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 27/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Schedule R controlled transactions itemized did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 39/100.