League of Women Voters of Virginia

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
546052410
IRS 990-EZ coverage
2019–2024
Forms available
Form 990-EZ 2024, Form 990-N 2023
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8042146312
Rating
63
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$98,927
Expenses
$41,332
Assets
$142,861
Liabilities
$41,332

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

Leadership & pay

2 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Joan Porte (President)

People named in this filing

  • Joan Porte (President)
  • Andrianne Konstas (Treasurer)

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

The purpose of the League of Women Voters is to promote the informed and active participation of citizens in government. The League is nonpartisan in that it does not support or oppose any political party or candidate; it is political in that it takes positions on selected governmental issues after member study and agreement.

What it reported doing in 2024

Advocacy&Action coordination - Calls to action based on support for LWV-VA positions. Reminding citizens to vote or directing citizens to register to vote through applications provided by the Virginia Board of Elections.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 65% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 43
  • Transparency & Controls: 82
  • Sustainability: 74
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 27.7%; rating input score 28
  • Program expense ratio: 67%; rating input score 67

Transparency & Controls

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

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 58.2%; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.46; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.29; rating input score 12; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 0.7% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 12.3% per year; rating input score 100; 84th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 25.8% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 27.7% of revenue deployed · 67% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: Filed governance answers
  • Accomplishments: 3 filed program accomplishments · $28K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 2 people listed
  • Consistency: 8 of 9 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 1 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 3 filing years from 2019 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.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Part I part ii net assets crosscheck did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 12/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.