Richmond Reproductive Freedom Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
383835776
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-N 2015
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8888471593
Rating
80
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,237,082
Expenses
$986,149
Assets
$1,704,000
Liabilities
$47,392

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

4 people listed

People named in this filing

  • CARLOTA ARIAS (DIRECTOR)
  • KALYN COGHILL (DIRECTOR)
  • AYE JOHNSON (DIRECTOR)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The richmond reproductive freedom project (rrfp) seeks to further reproductive justice by providing practical and financial support for abortion services in Virginia and surrounding communities. Rrfp strives to be a resource to the community by engaging in grassroots advocacy for the full spectrum of reproductive rights.

What it reported doing in 2024

Abortion funding: rrfp supports the full spectrum of pregnancy options. Rrfp provides direct services by making pledges for abortion funding, and financial assistance with practical support (transportation, lodging, clinic escorting, etc.) for people facing barriers to abortion care in Virginia and surrounding communities. Rrfp also has dedicated language access resources and funding to support abortion-seekers who speak spanish, who could benefit from other language interpretation, and incarcerated rights resources and funding for abortion-seekers who are currently or recently incarcerated. Community engagement: rrfp works to be a resource to our community by advocating for the full spectrum of reproductive rights. Rrfp hosts regular orientations, trainings, workshops, supply drives, and storytelling circles for rrfp volunteers and community members throughout the year. Rrfp partners with other organizations or groups on grassroots campaigns/projects that forefront reproductive justice and the ways our work functions within the context of other social justice issues and movement building.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 94% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
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. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and liabilities are high compared with assets.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 78
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 64
  • Sustainability: 70
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 79.7%; rating input score 80
  • Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 1 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 14
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 20.3%; rating input score 76; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.73; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 59; 59th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 81; 81st percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 28.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 24.3% per year; rating input score 100; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 33.3% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 79.7% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 3 of 3 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $986K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 4 people listed
  • Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 3 filed schedules
  • Filing history: 4 filing years from 2020 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.

  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 6 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 59/100.