Land Development Design Initiative Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
208828209
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Blacksburg, VA, USA
Phone
5402312474
Rating
87
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Adult, Continuing Education

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$64,877
Expenses
$21,955
Assets
$224,541

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

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • SUSAN WOLFORD (Director)
  • JEFF LIGHTHISER (Director)
  • JEFF GILLILAND (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 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

This organization originally applied for 501 (c)(3) status in 2008. The organization's operational mission remains the same as during that time, and broadly described involves supporting the educational efforts of the Land Development Design initiative (LDDI) at Virginia Tech. Specifically, this support is categorized by the following Program Services:1. Raising awareness of land development as a career opportunity for undergraduate students majoring in Civil & Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech. 2. Increasing the number of graduating students with an interest in land development design. 3. Improving the undergraduate educational experience in this emphasis area.4. Increasing opportunities for practitioners to interact with students during their education.

What it reported doing in 2024

Raising awareness of land development as a career opportunity for undergraduate students majoring in Civil & Environmental Engineering at Virginia Tech.

Operating model

Revenue model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
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

STRONG - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of available resources goes toward mission work. Some filed totals do not add up and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 76
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Sustainability: 78
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 61.7%; rating input score 62
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 66.2%; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 10.23; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15% per year; rating input score 100; 87th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 17% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 61.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 4 filed program accomplishments · $40K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 6 of 7 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 to 2024
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part III program expenses within total did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.