New River Community College Educational Foundation Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
521203686
IRS 990 coverage
2015–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Dublin, VA, USA
Phone
5406743600
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$2,977,366
Expenses
$2,029,378
Assets
$37,084,186
Liabilities
$1,256

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

Leadership & pay

34 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • BRANDON ROBERT (BOARD MEMBER): $224,646 total reported compensation
  • KENNEDY DEBORAH (EXECUTIVE DI): $156,997 total reported compensation
  • COVEY ANGELA (FORMER EXEC.): $109,666 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The new river community college education foundation, inc (the foundation) serves as a conduit for contributions that provide scholarship opportunities and tuition and book assistance for students, faculty, and staff, at new river community college. The foundation relies on the generosity of the community to continue its work in securing the future of the college, its students, faculty, and staff. Contributions are received from various corporations and the general public and are an investment in the future of the community. Through donations, grants, and endowments, the foundation is able to provide tuition and textbook scholarships for students, fund academic programs, and encourage the professional development of new river community college's faculty and staff. The foundation's work helps to ensure the college continues its pledge of providing academic excellence while expanding the services it offers to fulfill escalating workforce requirements.

What it reported doing in 2025

Scholarhips awarded and tuition and book assistance provided to new river community college students, faculty, and staff. The expense totals do not include the value of donated staff of 60,000 and donated facilities of 2,460.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 86
  • Transparency & Controls: 71
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 81.6%; rating input score 82
  • Program expense ratio: 93.3%; rating input score 93
  • Fundraising efficiency: $93.07 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 87; 87th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • 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: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 31.8%; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 18.27; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.8%; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 13.1% per year; rating input score 100; 70th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.6% per year; rating input score 100; 60th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 81.6% of revenue deployed · 93.3% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 34 of 34 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.9M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $225K · 34 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 27 of 27 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 11 filing years from 2015 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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 — Transparency & Controls: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.