Center for Workforce Development Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
205634446
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2010–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2012, Form 990-EZ 2016, Form 990-N 2008
Location
Sterling, VA, USA
Phone
5713534384
Rating
54
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Job Training

Reported finances

Revenue
$174,605
Expenses
$173,858
Assets
$2,457
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Arlene Ballou (Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • David Dupuy (Chair of the Board)
  • Suzanne Brooks (Secretary)
  • Deb Laramee (Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To create opportunities in underserved communities. We develop small businesses, create employment opportunities, work with homeless and unemployed populations, and offer technical assistance to small business.

What it reported doing in 2016

Create small businesses in our incubator. In our fifth year we have developed 30 small incubator businesses, graduated two, and have had for expand within the incubator space. We work with Veterans, seniors, youth, artists/crafts people, and displaced workers.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 62% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 21
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 35
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 21.3%; rating input score 21
  • Program expense ratio: 21.4%; rating input score 21

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0.4%; rating input score 36; 36th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.01; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 84; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 36% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -7% per year; rating input score 0; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -36.4% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 21.3% of revenue deployed · 21.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $37K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 5 filing years from 2010 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 21/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 21/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III transfer expenses within program total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 36/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.