Greater Piedmont Area Association of Realtors Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541743267
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Warrenton, VA, USA
Phone
5403474866
Rating
39
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Chambers of Commerce & Business Leagues

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$665,222
Expenses
$485,159
Assets
$2,708,083
Liabilities
$260,819

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • CARRIE BROWN (PRESIDENT)
  • WENDY JOHNSON (PRESIDENT EL)

Highest reported compensation

  • DEBBIE W WERLING (EXECUTIVE OF): $151,571 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

Greater piedmont area association of realtors, inc. (gpr) exists to provide outstanding services and leadership to help our members be successful and profitable in real estate. We are the trusted voice in real estate, providing education and services, advocating on behalf of our members and the public we serve.

What it reported doing in 2025

The greater piedmont realtors (gpr) provide exceptional value and services to our realtor members to elevate their success, professionalism, and ability to serve their clients. Information is vital for the gpr member to conduct their business. Gpr provides monthly detailed analysis on the real estate market for our 4 county footprint to the membership, local & state legislators, and local press. Additionally, a weekly newsletter is developed and shared to include any updates or issues impacting the licensee or consumer relative to the real estate market. As regulatory matters occur, gpr provides virtual learning opportunities in addition to e-news during & post general assembly each year.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 75% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

REVIEW - Most voting board members are independent and revenue comfortably covers expenses. 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: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 55
  • Accountability: 82
  • Sustainability: 67
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 15th 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: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 57
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 27.1%; rating input score 79; 79th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 5.58; rating input score 86; 86th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.1; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.2%; rating input score 7; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 3% per year; rating input score 100; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 41st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 14 of 14 board members independent · 4 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments
  • Leadership: top reported pay $152K · 15 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 13 of 14 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes executive pay
  • Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • 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.

Key Signals

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

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 6 not reported.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 7/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.