New England Region Volleyball Association Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 042713129
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2013–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2009
- Location
- New Bedford, MA, USA
- Phone
- 5089220803
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $7,054,199
- Expenses
- $6,677,699
- Assets
- $3,075,306
- Liabilities
- $111,035
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID PEIXOTO (PRESIDENT AND REGIONAL COM)
Highest reported compensation
- DAVID PEIXOTO (PRESIDENT AND REGIONAL COM): $202,400 total reported compensation
- JUDY KATALINA (DIRECTOR AND COMMISSIONER): $140,950 total reported compensation
- ROXANN LINK (DIRECTOR): $130,850 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
We are one of 40 regions of USA volleyball, the national governing body of volleyball in the united states. Nerva represents the 6 new england states. Our goals are to promote, develope and expand volleyball opportunities in our region and to provide support as well as resources for players, coaches, officials and leaders. Nerva srives to improve quality playing and tournament experience for all its members.
What it reported doing in 2024
Volleyball tournaments and related events
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Earned-program. 98% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
- 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
MIXED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and program spending has grown recently. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 81
- Transparency & Controls: 51
- Accountability: 14
- Sustainability: 42
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 89%; rating input score 89
- Program expense ratio: 94.3%; rating input score 94
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Missing
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 4.1%; rating input score 4; 12th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 33
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: 5.3%; rating input score 52; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.46; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.04; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 8.6%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.1% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 15.1% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 17.7% per year; rating input score 100; 80th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 89% of revenue deployed · 94.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 0 of 6 board members independent · 3 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $6.3M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $202K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $1M reported
- Consistency: 33 of 34 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
- 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.
- Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.
Key Signals
Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.
- High — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
- High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 4/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 16/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 52/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.