Pro-choice Virginia Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 770611790
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2012–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024, Form 990-EZ 2011
- Location
- Alexandria, VA, USA
- Phone
- 5719702536
- Rating
- 83
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Health - General and Rehabilitative N.E.C.
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $1,448,732
- Expenses
- $1,242,007
- Assets
- $1,430,341
- Liabilities
- $227,999
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
10 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- TARINA KEENE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- TARINA KEENE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $98,271 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Repro rising Virginia foundation supports and protects as fundamental freedoms every person's bodily autonomy, reproductive decision-making, and access to the full continuum of sexual and reproductive health care without barriers. Centered in racial and gender justice, the foundation supports education, leadership training and other programs to advance reproductive freedom, combat stigma, and promote sound public policy.
What it reported doing in 2024
Rise up for repro: student advocacy fellowship program seeks to prepare the next generation of leaders and changemakers in the reproductive health, rights, and justice movements. This program is an effective force for transforming students into advocates as they lead meaningful projects on their campuses or in surrounding communities. In this one-year academic program, two students are chosen for each campus and work as a team. Each fellow develops advocacy and leadership skills through a series of course modules, a capstone project, and an ongoing mentorship with a rrvaf staff organizer or graduate of the fellowship. To ensure that the projects include equity and highlight(continued on schedule o)intersectionality, we collaborate with community-based reproductive rights and social justice leaders and organizations to provide a full-spectrum progressive advocacy space. During the second semester, students choose a grassroots capstone project that will create direct change and service to the university community, such as identifying barriers to sexual and reproductive healthcare, raising awareness of the need for services or reforms, or developing pathways to establish policies and resources to make access to care a reality. Rrvaf is on 6-7 campuses per academic year.our positive presence campaign continues to be one of our most popular activities. Volunteers brave the heat and the snow to stand outside an abortion provider's healthcare center holding signs with positive/caring messages on days when the clinic is providing abortion services. Our activists serve as a supportive presence for the staff and patients, counteracting the negative energy and shaming tactics of anti-abortion protestors. As they are not verbally engaged with anti-abortion protesters, this activity has been found to be a reliable way to slowly introduce new volunteers to abortion rights activism. The program has proven to be an excellent example of an activity originally developed by rrvaf staff which is now solely coordinated by long-standing, dedicated volunteers and highly replicable.the changing minds through storytelling training program strives to normalize abortion care and the full spectrum of reproductive healthcare. Storytelling destigmatizes reproductive healthcare, builds compassion and empathy for those seeking abortion care, and motivates listeners to act. This is an interactive program providing participants with the tools needed to write a strong, effective story and become powerful abortion access advocates. The program's goals are to equip volunteers with effective storytelling tactics, build a storyteller pipeline that supports rrvaf's other programs, and create a story bank from which to draw. Storytellers share information about their lived experiences, band together with others to show power in numbers, and support culture change efforts by presenting their stories without shame or stigma. This training program is designed to build participants' confidence, which may lead them to speak on rrvaf sponsored panels, in discussion groups, and at educational events, gaining experience to possibly engage in more public-facing opportunities.repro on the record is a program that identifies opportunities for storytellers, volunteers, and allies willing to be "on the record" to educate policymakers, the media, and the public about their personal experiences with access reproductive healthcare.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 97% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 84% 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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 79
- Transparency & Controls: 89
- Accountability: 84
- Sustainability: 58
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 75.8%; rating input score 76
- Program expense ratio: 87%; rating input score 87
- Fundraising efficiency: $28.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 93.8%; rating input score 94; 24th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 95.3%; rating input score 95; 42nd 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: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
- 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: Fail
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Fail
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 14.3%; rating input score 69; 69th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.15; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.16; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0.3%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 9.7% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 10% per year; rating input score 100; 66th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 11.7% per year; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 75.8% of revenue deployed · 87% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 9 of 9 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1.1M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $98K · 10 people listed
- Consistency: 31 of 33 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors and grants
- Filing history: 11 filing years from 2012 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
- Related organizations: 3 filed related-organization links
- 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 47/100.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 35/100.