Rpm Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
202102643
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tacoma, WA, USA
Phone
8555374579
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Museum, Museum Activities

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$220,604
Expenses
$388,582
Assets
$599,127
Liabilities
$261,015

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

Leadership & pay

16 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • David Madeira (Vice Chair & CEO,AAT)

Highest reported compensation

  • David Madeira (Vice Chair & CEO,AAT): $365,722 total reported compensation
  • Gary Yamamoto (Exec Director, ACM (left July 2024)): $143,221 total reported compensation
  • Nick Ellis (Exec Director, RPM): $115,940 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The RPM Foundation supports restoration and preservation training programs for the next generation of automotive, motorcycle and marine craftsmen. As the educational arm of America's Automotive Trust, the services, resources and grants provided by the RPM Foundation safeguard the future of the collector vehicle industry by sustaining hands-on training for young adults.

What it reported doing in 2024

The RPM Foundation is dedicated to ensuring that critical skills necessary to preserve and restore collector vehicles are not lost by providing scholarships and educational grants to students and organizations committed to hands-on training of the trades. Total scholarships granted = 15.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 88% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 68% for direct work, and 32% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 85
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 87
  • Sustainability: 19
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 80.4%; rating input score 80
  • Fundraising efficiency: $5.39 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.5%; rating input score 96; 55th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Yes; rating input score 100

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 85.7%; rating input score 86; 23rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -76.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.44; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 41.1%; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -1.2% per year; rating input score 0; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -3.4% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -2.6% per year; rating input score 0; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 14 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $312K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $366K · 16 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 33 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 24/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 52/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 6/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.