Nanchang Project
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 832340778
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2025–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2025, Form 990-N 2024
- Location
- Chesapeake, VA, USA
- Phone
- 9709881448
- Rating
- 79
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Family Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $29,314
- Expenses
- $15,992
- Assets
- $47,857
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
7 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Erin Valentino (Co-Executive Director)
- Cassidy Sack (Co-Executive Director)
People named in this filing
- Erin Valentino (Co-Executive Director)
- Cassidy Sack (Co-Executive Director)
- Jolanda Blaauw (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 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Nanchang Project facilitates reunions between Chinese adoptees and their birth families in China, providing support for searches, travel, and DNA testing.
What it reported doing in 2025
DNA Testing Assistance: Purchased and distributed DNA kits to assist adoptees and birth families in facilitating genetic matches during family search efforts. The program aimed to increase the likelihood of successful birth family identification and reunification through DNA testing. During the short tax year, approximately 80 DNA kits were purchased and shipped. Program expenses included DNA kits, shipping reimbursements, and modest gratuities for local search assistance. Program funding included both general operating funds and restricted grant funding, including the Catesby Grant. Expenses: $9,303.63. Grants: $0.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 82% 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
SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and a large share of total spending goes to programs. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and reported officer compensation is a large share of total spending, which may reflect staffing concentration.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 70
- Transparency & Controls: 100
- Sustainability: 78
- Growth: NotEnoughData
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 53.1%; rating input score 53
- Program expense ratio: 97.3%; rating input score 97
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 45.4%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.99; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: Limited
- Asset growth: Limited
Details
- Where the money goes: 53.1% of revenue deployed · 97.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 2 filed program accomplishments · $16K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 7 people listed
- Consistency: 9 of 9 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 53/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.