Mennonite Disaster Service of Va
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 201992663
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2010–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025
- Location
- Stuarts Draft, VA, USA
- Phone
- 5402555171
- Rating
- 80
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Christianity
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $83,896
- Expenses
- $51,607
- Assets
- $245,991
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
4 people listed
People named in this filing
- WOODROW W DRIVER (CHAIRMAN)
- J ED RISSLER (SECRETARY)
- DAVID NICE (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Mennonite disaster service of Virginia was organized to coordinate the organized response to disasters for the constituent churches that relate to the mennonite central committee, and is the network through which its constituents join together to care for those in need. Mennonite disaster service volunteers begin by providing clean up services after floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc. These services are provided by volunteers form the closest churches, focusing on those who have no other resources or means of recovery. All mennonite disaster services at any time are provided without charge of discrimination. As soon as possible, mennonite disaster service volunteers move beyond clean up to assisting in repair and rebuilding efforts.
What it reported doing in 2025
Disaster relief from floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 95% 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.
The verdict
STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 77
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 71
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 63.4%; rating input score 63
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 38.5%; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.77; rating input score 83; 83rd 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: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 7.4% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 3.2% per year; rating input score 100; 50th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 63.4% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $52K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 2 filed schedules
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2010 to 2025
- 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.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.