Rtag

Legal name: Rtag Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
830711772
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2023
Official website data refreshed
Aug 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2023, Form 990-EZ 2019
Location
Commerce City, CO, USA
Phone
7206985421
Rating
77
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Military, Veterans' Organizations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$714,144
Expenses
$616,835
Assets
$415,219
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2023. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

3 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joshua Lee (President)
  • James McClung (Vice President of Special projects)
  • Timothy Kirschbaum (Executive Vice President)

People named in this filing

  • Joshua Lee (President)
  • James McClung (Vice President of Special projects)
  • Timothy Kirschbaum (Executive 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 2023. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

RTAG is a veteran-run 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization designed to help all veterans, regardless of experience, jump start their post military career in the world of aviation.

What it reported doing in 2023

Annual Aviation and Aerospace Convention RTAG hosted its annual aviation and aerospace convention serving military veterans transitioning into civilian aviation careers. The event provided educational seminars, industry networking opportunities, employer engagement, and career development programming. Major airlines, aerospace companies, and industry partners participated to connect directly with veteran attendees. The convention advances the organizations charitable mission by facilitating employment pathways and professional development for veterans. We also present our Scholarships at this event

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 86% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 51% for direct work, and 49% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 70
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 86.4%; rating input score 86
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 84.6%; rating input score 85; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 36.1%; rating input score 36; 27th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 13.6%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.67; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.3% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 35.2% per year; rating input score 100; 94th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 36.3% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 5 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 86.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $345K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 3 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 22 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2022 to 2023
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 36/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • 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.