Rural Community Assistance Partnership

Legal name: Rural Community Assistance Partnership Incorporated

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
237367533
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Washington, DC, United States
Phone
(202) 408-1273
Rating
90
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$36,849,641
Expenses
$36,343,666
Assets
$7,524,600
Liabilities
$6,580,098

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

Leadership & pay

22 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • BRIAN SCALES (VICE PRESIDENT)
  • OLGA MORALES-PATE (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • OLGA MORALES-PATE (CEO): $339,298 total reported compensation
  • THEODORE STIGER (CHIEF OF GOV'T REL. & POLICY (THRU 12/24)): $197,485 total reported compensation
  • DAVID FREDENBURGH (CFO): $183,519 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

RCAP works with rural communities across the country to elevate rural voices and build local capacity to improve quality of life, starting at the tap. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) oversees a number of technical assistance and training programs as part of its mission to help rural and tribal communities build resilience, sustainability and improve quality of life. Special Initiatives Community & Economic Development. The Rural Community Assistance Partnership (RCAP) is a national network of nonprofit partners working to provide technical assistance, training, resources, and support to rural communities across every state, the U.S. territories, and tribal lands. Through RCAP’s regional partners, more than 350 technical assistance providers (TAPs) build long-term, trusted relationships with thousands of communities across the country. How RCAP Works RCAP is a...

What it reported doing in 2024

Drinking and waste water program and solid waste program: through the u.s. Department of agriculture (usda) rural development (rd), rural utilities service (rus), and the u.s. Environmental protection agency (epa)'s office of water, technical assistance and training programs are directed towards small water and waste disposal systems that are either current receivers of or are eligible for usda water and environmental program funding (small rural and tribal communities with populations under 10,000). Through this program, rcap worked with rural communities to provide technical assistance to build technical, managerial and financial capacity to achieve and maintain compliance with state and federal regulations as well as implement managerial and financial best practices to achieve long term sustainability. The environmental protection agency's (epa) national priority area 1: training and technical assistance for small public water systems to achieve and maintain compliance program is geared towards building local technical capacity for small community and non-community water systems serving less than 10,000 in population in all 50 states, the us territories and on tribal lands. The environmental protection agency's (epa) national priority area 2: rcap continues to build out the agua4all program, providing water filling stations and water bottles to rural and tribal schools, ensuring every student and teacher in those schools has access to safe drinking water.the environmental protection agency's (epa) national priority area 4: improving water quality through training and technical assistance to private well owners program is geared towards owners and managers of private drinking water wells as well as stakeholders that serve private wells owners to help protect water quality in private drinking water wells and to assist well owners in understanding how to keep their wells in good working order to protect the health of their families. Through its many program partners, rcap also provided training, private well sampling services and additional education and outreach to rural residents.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 94% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 87% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Expenses are high relative to revenue and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 94
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 29
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Program expense ratio: 96.2%; rating input score 96
  • Fundraising efficiency: $99.65 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 14th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 5 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 83
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Pass
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 99.2%; rating input score 99; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 66th 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: 1.4%; rating input score 39; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.21; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.87; rating input score 11; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.2%; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 12.6% per year; rating input score 100; 74th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 1 operating location identified
  • Where the money goes: 94.9% of revenue deployed · 96.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $35M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $339K · 22 people listed · 5 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $374K reported
  • Consistency: 34 of 35 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 22 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 16 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 — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 39/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 5/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 11/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.