Rural Urban Bridge Initiative

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
873370162
IRS 990 coverage
2022–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Abingdon, VA, USA
Phone
2766988956
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$446,098
Expenses
$366,290
Assets
$384,240
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

8 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Anthony Flaccavento (Executive Director)
  • Erica Etelson (President of the Board)

Highest reported compensation

  • Anthony Flaccavento (Executive Director): $80,000 total reported compensation
  • Meredith Dean (Director of Community Works): $62,952 total reported compensation
  • Jacqueline Von Kundra (Financial Officer): $38,030 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 Rural Urban Bridge Initiative invites all of us to think differently, talk differently and act differently in order to understand the causes of the rural-urban divide and then do something to repair it. We develop political, economic and communications strategies that build bridges and serve the common interests of all working and middle class Americans.

What it reported doing in 2024

Held public issue briefings, conducted trainings on the rural-urban divide, outlined public policy proposals for rural renewal

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 94% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

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: 55
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 68
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 52.3%; rating input score 52
  • Program expense ratio: 63.7%; rating input score 64
  • Fundraising efficiency: $13.42 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 2 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 22
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 17.9%; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.05; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 80; 80th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 53.1%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 57.9% per year; rating input score 100; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 30.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 44.1% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 52.3% of revenue deployed · 63.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 6 board members independent · 2 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $233K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 8 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2022 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 52/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.