Nansemond River Preservation Alliance

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
272941030
IRS 990 coverage
2019–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2010, Form 990-N 2010
Location
Suffolk, VA, USA
Phone
7575827706
Rating
76
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Water Resource, Wetlands Conservation and Management

Reported finances

Revenue
$109,603
Expenses
$141,315
Assets
$109,603
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Elizabeth Cross (Presidentceo): $79,500 total reported compensation
  • Cindy Pinell (Program Coordinator): $20,000 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To educate and engage citizens to be environmental stewards of our local environment to restore Suffolks impaired waterways increase shoreline stabilization and biodiversity create access to water for all and educate our community and youth to grow the next generation of local environmentalists.

What it reported doing in 2025

Suffolk Nature Project engages all citizens in activities to improve water quality increase biodiversity and engage all ages outside. This includes conducting Citizen Water Monitoring Program through DEQ in which data is collected monthly April -November and provided to VA DEQ online data system. Every two years data is compiled to make the State of the River Report fo education and evaluate our community standards. Additionally NRPA maintains and grows native species garden as well as maintain and grow two restoration Oyster reefs. These activities increase our local biodiversity and resilience as a coastal community. We also provide community wide education and awareness to help our local citizens engage enjoy and preserve nature.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 98% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 91
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 28
  • Sustainability: 23
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 83.2%; rating input score 83
  • Fundraising efficiency: $36.01 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 68; 68th 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: 6 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -28.9%; rating input score 8; 8th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.78; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 77; 77th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.8% per year; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 7.2% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 83.2% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 18 board members independent · 6 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $118K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $80K · 18 people listed
  • Consistency: 41 of 41 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2019 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 8/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 34/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 1/100.