Richmond Virginia Internet Exchange Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 472087158
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2015–2020
- Forms available
- Form 990 2020
- Location
- Ashland, VA, USA
- Phone
- 8045370096
- Rating
- 82
- Verdict
- STRONG
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Computer Science
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $96,575
- Expenses
- $97,320
- Assets
- $1,572
- Liabilities
- $0
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
5 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- JON LARSEN (PRESIDENT)
- SCOTT K BROWN (VICE PRESIDENT)
People named in this filing
- JON LARSEN (PRESIDENT)
- SCOTT COONFIELD (TREASURER)
- SCOTT K BROWN (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. Selected filing: tax year 2020. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The organization through its volunteers operates an internet exchange point in hanover county, Virginia. An internet exchange point (ixp) is a physical infrastructure that allows different internet service providers (isps) to exchange internet traffic between their networks by means of mutual peering arrangements, which allow traffic to be exchanged without cost or at low cost. Ixps reduce the portion of an isp's traffic which must be deliverd via their upstream transit providers, thereby reducing the cost of their service. In addition, the increased number of paths learned through the ixp improves routing efficiency and fault tolerance, thus providing a direct benefit to the consumers that receive internet service from the participating isps. The organization welcomes as members all legal entity types: government, non-government, educational, for-profit, non-profit, etc.
What it reported doing in 2020
The program is designed to connect consumers to the internet exchange to improve the quality and latency in traffic routing and reduce their operating costs.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Membership-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from membership dues.
- 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 total assets are small relative to annual expenses; liquid coverage is unknown.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 89
- Transparency & Controls: 90
- Accountability: 64
- Sustainability: 43
- Growth: 80
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 100%; rating input score 100
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd 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: -0.8%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 4; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 71; 71st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 17.4% per year; rating input score 100; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 11.8% per year; rating input score 100; 92nd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -25.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 100% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 1 of 7 filing controls reported
- Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $97K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 5 people listed
- Consistency: 14 of 14 current checks pass
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules
- Filing history: 6 filing years from 2015 to 2020
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- 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.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 4/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 56/100.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.