Workforce Development Board

Legal name: Mid-Ohio Valley Workforce Investment Corporation

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
900006114
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2020
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2020
Location
Parkersburg, WV, United States
Phone
304-420-4531
Rating
78
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Employment Procurement Assistance

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,207,949
Expenses
$3,207,949
Assets
$296,369
Liabilities
$296,369

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

11 people listed

People named in this filing

  • KEVIN HELMICK (Director)
  • CONNIE KINDER (Director)
  • MITCH MORRISON (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. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Capturing Appalachian Prosperity and Economic Success (CAPES.) Engaging and encouraging our customers to take 'a leap of faith' towards their own economic future is our driving force. Providing customers with pertinent and specific information and services related to job training, professional development, and industry-specific training as it relates to in-demand occupations, as well as emerging industries is critical. However, guiding them and creating hands on experiences to acquire the pertinent skills that lead to these opportunities is key.

What it reported doing in 2020

To improve the employment retension and earning for adults and dislocated workers by providing access to job training programs designed to increase education and occupation skills. Youth activities are also provided the participants basic skills and earn secondary diplomas Adult worker clients served Dislocated worker clients served Youth program clients served

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 62% of its reported program spending out as grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Revenue has declined or grown slowly and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 78
  • Accountability: 94
  • Sustainability: 22
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 98.4%; rating input score 98
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 91.7%; rating input score 92; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 65.2%; rating input score 65; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 6 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 86
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 0%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.09; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 1; rating input score 6; 6th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 92; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: -1.9% per year; rating input score 0; 12th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -4.1% per year; rating input score 0; 7th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 7 programs and campaigns described on the official site · 2 operating locations identified
  • Where the money goes: 98.4% of revenue deployed · 98.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 11 of 11 board members independent · 6 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.3M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 11 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes grants
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2011 to 2020
  • 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 — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 22/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 6/100.