Life After Virginia Foundation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
334152265
IRS 990 coverage
2025–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Keswick, VA, USA
Phone
4107034803
Rating
57
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health, Crisis Intervention N.E.C.

Reported finances

Revenue
$219,703
Expenses
$43,026
Assets
$204,600
Liabilities
$27,923

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

Leadership & pay

10 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Robert Satola (Executive Director)

Highest reported compensation

  • Robert Satola (Executive Director): $100,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

O Life After Virginia Foundation exists to support the whole athlete-helping current and former UVA football student-athletes navigate life beyond the game with confidence connection and clarity. Our mission is to light the path forward every step of the way.

What it reported doing in 2025

Since UVA student-athletes spend 11 months out of the year training in Charlottesville full-time internships off site are not an option for most players. If you can provide flexible opportunities for corporate skill development we would like to collaborate as we prepare for the upcoming season. It is our goal that players have competitive options upon graduation and this event is designed to foster connection and access to experiences that can enhance the hiring process. In consideration of a few players who pursue postseason and professional football some student-athletes need flexible start dates for post-graduate employment.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 46
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 26
  • Sustainability: 71
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 16.3%; rating input score 16
  • Program expense ratio: 82.8%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $140.61 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th 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: 0%; rating input score 0; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • 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: 80.4%; rating input score 97; 97th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.76; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.14; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 232.4%; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 16.3% of revenue deployed · 82.8% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 10 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $36K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $100K · 10 people listed
  • Consistency: 30 of 30 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 16/100.
  • High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.