Hampton Roads Center for Civic

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
261512105
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2010
Forms available
Form 990 2010
Location
Norfolk, VA, USA
Phone
7578899359
Rating confidence
Limited
Sector
Citizen Participation

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$166,536
Expenses
$140,575
Assets
$61,166
Liabilities
$10,068

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

17 people listed

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2010. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Community institute to provide education, capability & process for citizens, organizations & local governments in hampton roads to identify, research, consider & resolve public issues through effective citizen engmt

What it reported doing in 2010

A community institute to provide education, capability and process for citizens, organizations and local governments in hampton roads to identify, research, consider and resolve public issues through effective citizen engagement

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 66% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

- The available evidence is not sufficient to produce an overall rating for this filing. This is not a warning sign.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: NotEnoughData
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 76
  • Sustainability: 56
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: Limited
  • Program expense ratio: Limited
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 43
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 15.6%; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.44; rating input score 24; 24th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: Financial trends and filed revenue, expense, asset, and liability detail
  • Governance: 17 of 17 board members independent · 3 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $102K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 17 people listed
  • Consistency: 24 of 24 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.

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.

  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 6 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 24/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.