Rural Youth Institute

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
932311046
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023
Location
Yarmouth, ME, USA
Phone
2077301154
Rating
71
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Student Services, Organizations of Students

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$596,817
Expenses
$189,421
Assets
$624,905
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Donald Carpenter (President and Director (end 12/2025))
  • Jason Judd (President and Director)
  • Megan Taft (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Donald Carpenter (President and Director (end 12/2025)): $207,792 total reported compensation
  • Erin Cinelli (Treasurer and Director (end 12/2025)): $140,035 total reported compensation
  • Megan Taft (Executive Director): $102,309 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The Rural Youth Institute is dedicated to enhancing rural youth development by strengthening the leadership and capacity of professionals working with young people. By bridging research and practice, the Rural Youth Institute seeks to innovate youth development by offering immersive learning labs, transformative research, comprehensive training and strategic advocacy to strengthen youth-serving organizations. By employing evidence-based strategies, the Rural Youth Institute aims to foster innovation in the youth development field to elevate the aspirations of rural youth.

What it reported doing in 2025

The Rural Youth Institute (the "Institute") employs evidence-based strategies, fosters innovation, and provides opportunities for young people in rural communities to explore pathways towards a successful future. The Institute operates as a think tank and a "do tank" by: - Collaborating with strategic partners, such as educational institutions, youth organizations, and community stakeholders; - Overseeing research, program development, and coordination throughout the region; and - Engaging and advocating for social changes that aligns with the Institute's mission and goals. For this initial year of operations, the Institute secured starter funding and began offering trainings and educational programming designed to help advance and develop rural Maine communities.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 71% for direct work, and 29% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

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: 47
  • Transparency & Controls: 87
  • Accountability: 86
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 28.4%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 72.6%; rating input score 73
  • Fundraising efficiency: $26.47 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 63; 63rd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • 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; 78th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 68.3%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.3; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 99.9%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 50.8% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 80% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 82.8% per year; rating input score 100; 98th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 28.4% of revenue deployed · 72.6% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 7 of 7 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $138K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $208K · 11 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.