Community Violence Intervention Center

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
450359167
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-T 2025
Location
Grand Forks, ND, USA
Phone
7017460405
Rating
81
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Victims' Services

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,646,908
Expenses
$6,906,552
Assets
$10,638,491
Liabilities
$1,066,673

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

Leadership & pay

19 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • COIYA TOMPKINS INMAN (PRESIDENT/CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • COIYA TOMPKINS INMAN (PRESIDENT/CEO): $160,810 total reported compensation
  • TRACY LEDUC (CFO): $141,039 total reported compensation
  • KARI KERR (VP OF PREVENTION, EDU AND): $128,890 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Preventing violence. Promoting safety. Building hope. With a bold mission to end interpersonal violence in two generations, our nationally recognized agency delivers vital safety and healing services to adults and children experiencing trauma and educates youth and professionals about how to prevent violence and develop healthy relationships.

What it reported doing in 2025

Safety services every person deserves to live a life free of violence.1) crisis services: 996 adults were supported through times of crisis, including 840 victims of domestic violence and 156 victims of sexual assault. Advocates on the crisis line answered 385 calls and advocates assisted clients in obtaining 17 orders for protection. 98% of clients reported feeling safer and more aware of ways to plan for safety as a result of cvic services. Bre (name and some details changed) found out about cvic through our expanded rural outreach program she received a letter about cvic's services following an incident where she called local law enforcement for help after experiencing abuse. Bre met with our rural advocate at a safe location in her community. Cvic's advocate helped bre obtain a domestic violence protection order and safety plan. The advocate helped bre find local transportation support to be able to get to medical appointments, provided a referral to therapy services, and helped bre apply for benefits. Later, after cvic was notified that a partner wanted to donate an electric oven range, the rural advocate immediately thought of bre. Her oven had been damaged by her abuser, and cvic's advocate remembered bre talking about wishing she could cook again but didn't have the financial resources to fix her stove. Bre was thrilled to receive the oven and thanked cvic for going above and beyond to help her. Then in december, cvic nominated bre for the angels on wheels program, our partnership with rydell cars, that donates used cars to survivors who need them. With her new car, bre will never have to worry about missing her medical appointments.2) safe shelter: 109 people were sheltered for 4,328 nights at mary's place while they worked toward safe and independent lives.liz (name and some details changed) came to mary's place for emergency shelter after experiencing human trafficking. In addition to needing a safe place to live, liz needed help reclaiming her personal identification, which had been taken by her trafficker. Because of this, liz had been unable to access safety net services, and some services she had been enrolled to receive like disability payments, were being directed to her trafficker and stolen. Cvic worked with liz to replace her identification and gain access to crucial benefits and services.3) self-sufficiency: 15 families with 18 children received transitional housing services/rental assistance. 332 individuals received assistance with housing, employment, or education goals.4) crime victim advocacy: 1,379 victims and witnesses of crimes received case information and support through criminal proceedings. Cvic's victim witness specialists attended 1,765 court hearings with or on behalf of crime victims and arranged and attended 284 meetings between crime victims and prosecutors. 99% of clients surveyed reported that they were satisfied with the services they received. Clients shared the following about their experiences, "how can we express our thanks for all you have done for us this past year? You have answered questions we didn't even know to ask you have listened to us held our hands and calmed our nerves. We never felt alone but, always supported and taken care of. We can't praise the job that you do enough and "[my advocate] was phenomenal and has a deep understanding of how to deal with the various situations i dealt her. I am incredibly thankful for her help and support throughout this process. Her impact on my life and my children's life is immense. I didn't feel so lost or alone in navigating this situation. We are doing much better now and hopefully with time and counseling we will continue to get better."5) lethality assessment: 122 individuals were screened by law enforcement, with 55% found to be in high danger. 24 victims spoke with a cvic advocate about what services area available to keep them safe.6) supervised visitation: 86 families were supported during 1,002 supervised visits and 606 sup

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 93% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 80
  • Transparency & Controls: 76
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 25
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 91.3%; rating input score 91
  • Program expense ratio: 74.4%; rating input score 74
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.04 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 94.7%; rating input score 95; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 95.3%; rating input score 95; 36th 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; 63rd 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: -22.3%; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.54; rating input score 49; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 13.1%; rating input score 26; 26th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 7.5% per year; rating input score 100; 49th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 6.3% per year; rating input score 100; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 11% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 91.3% of revenue deployed · 74.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $5.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 39 of 41 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 9 filed money-flow records
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 42/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 4/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 49/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 26/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 48/100.