Network of Victim Assistance
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 237438387
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Jamison, PA, USA
- Phone
- 2153436543
- Rating
- 81
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Victims' Services
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $5,202,698
- Expenses
- $5,483,602
- Assets
- $4,493,568
- Liabilities
- $1,345,755
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
19 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Penelope Ettinger (Executive Director)
- Carin O'Donnell (Vice President)
- Eddie Hale (President)
Highest reported compensation
- Penelope Ettinger (Executive Director): $160,948 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Training, community education and prevention programs. Vision statementnova envisions a society free of violence, one that empowers individuals and promotes respect for the privacy, diversity and dignity of all people.values statementwe believe that all individuals should be empowered to make decisiions about their lives, to be secure from violation of their bodies and personal space, and to live in a society free from violence. We further beleive that society has a responsibility to educate and support indivdiuals with regard to these rights.
What it reported doing in 2024
Prevention Education: In FYE 2025, the organizations educators provided 999 programs to 22,985 students, teachers, and parents on such topics such as personal safety, Bystander intervention (Upstanders), CyberSafety and Healthy Relationships and continued expansion of 27 specialized programs to 194 individuals with disabilities.An additional 183 trainings were provided to 3,840 community members and professionals to enhance their skills in working with victims., understand their responsibilities in reporting abuse and increase awareness of personal safety skills and victimization issues. Programs and trainings are regularly monitored and evaluated using various survey tools including retrospective surveys, pre and posttests, student focus groups and teacher satisfaction.Sample outcomes include: ENCOURAGE Upstanders, a peer education program Survey (Feedback Form) evaluates the level of change of Upstander behaviors in our peer educators prior to joining our program compared to their current attitudes, beliefs, and skills to end violence. Since joining this program: In instances of bullying, 80% have safely stepped in In instances of bullying, 60% were never a bystander and 40% rarely a bystanderI have frequently/always discussed being an Upstander to other peers, 100%I have reached out to someone experiencing bullying that I was not previously a friend, 90%I have participated in behaviors that could be seen as bullying, 100% Never We held two Focus Group with guided questions for feedback and insight regarding how AI is blurring lines for young people, can confidently present false information and reflect human biases (racial, general, LGTBQ, or cultural). We will use this information to update our spring 2026 programs.Mandated Reporting - Training OutcomesOverall, participants rated the training very highly, with the majority finding the quality of the training, the amount of material covered, the length of the training, and the level of the training to be excellent. Almost all of participants stated that they would recommend this training to others.91% of all participants stated that the instructors had excellent comprehensive knowledge of the content and the training was valuable to their role, either professionally or in the community. Following NOVAs Mandatory Reporting of Suspected Child Abuse Training, 98% of participants felt that they better understood their responsibilities and duties as a mandated reporter of child abuse and neglect. Majority (98%) of all participants left their training with an increased level of confidence in their abilities to make a comprehensive report.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 83% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- 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. Fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised and expenses are high relative to revenue.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 82
- Transparency & Controls: 71
- Accountability: 100
- Sustainability: 30
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 75.5%; rating input score 75
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.11 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 13; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 2 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Pass
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Pass
- Independent financial-statement audit: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -5.4%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.82; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.3; rating input score 34; 34th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 2.9%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 6.5% per year; rating input score 100; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 6.8% per year; rating input score 100; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 4.4% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 75.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 16 of 16 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $4.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $161K · 19 people listed · 2 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 27 of 28 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
- Filing history: 16 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- 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: Fundraising efficiency scored 13/100.
- High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 19/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 34/100.