Codeva Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
464339704
IRS 990 coverage
2014–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2013
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8047279817
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Educational Services and Schools - Other

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,016,727
Expenses
$2,856,664
Assets
$285,151
Liabilities
$255,366

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

Leadership & pay

23 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • TINA MANGLICMOT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • TINA MANGLICMOT (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $157,658 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Codeva partners with schools, parents, and communities to bring computer science education opportunities to all of Virginia's students.

What it reported doing in 2024

Cs education development: develop curriculum and training for after school, summer programs, public and private schools, and homeschool co-ops that support cs learning in grades k-12. Worked with public, private, and university partners to investigate and present nationally on the most important topics in computing education. This research has led to development of critical cs education resources like stem kits, advancing rural cs education, praxis exam preparation tools, and innovative curriculum in e-textiles and ai pathways. Published scholarly articles and a youth-focused magazine focused on computer science learning.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 71
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 32
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.2%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 75.1%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $17.48 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 55; 55th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • 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: 8 of 8 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: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 5.3%; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.1; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.9; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 5.5%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.4% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 18.7% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11.4% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.2% of revenue deployed · 75.1% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $2.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $158K · 23 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $198K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2014 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 55/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 3/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 8/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 50/100.