Project Management Institute Central Virginia Chapter
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541801626
- IRS 990-EZ coverage
- 2011–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990-EZ 2024
- Location
- Richmond, VA, USA
- Rating
- 58
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $68,931
- Expenses
- $36,827
- Assets
- $170,156
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- CHRISTINA GUTHROW PMP DASSM (Vice President)
- JOYCE GLADY PMP (Vice President)
- MARION KAROL PMP (Vice President)
- KERRIE ARKWELL PMP (Vice President)
- SURESH RAJU PMP PGMP (Vice President)
- KELLY EVANS PMP DASSM (President)
People named in this filing
- CHRISTINA GUTHROW PMP DASSM (Vice President)
- JOYCE GLADY PMP (Vice President)
- MARION KAROL PMP (Vice President)
Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.
Source: IRS Form 990-EZ. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
To promote the professional interest of chapter members within the Central Virginia area.
What it reported doing in 2024
Conducted monthly in-person and virtual chapter meetings during 2024 to foster professional contacts and professional education to the members. 1-2 PDU's were offered in each meetings.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent revenue detail to tell how this nonprofit funds its work.
- 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 - The filed numbers largely add up and revenue comfortably covers expenses. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 41
- Transparency & Controls: 82
- Sustainability: 73
- Growth: 20
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 30.5%; rating input score 31
- Program expense ratio: 57.2%; rating input score 57
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 52nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 46.6%; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.62; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: Limited
- Revenue growth: -5.4% per year; rating input score 0; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 6.2% per year; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 30.5% of revenue deployed · 57.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: Filed governance answers
- Accomplishments: 6 filed program accomplishments · $21K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 6 of 6 current checks pass
- Schedules: 1 filed schedules
- Filing history: 13 filing years from 2011 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 31/100.
- Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 57/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.