Roanoke Blacksburg Innovation Network

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
462975294
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2016
Location
Blacksburg, VA, USA
Phone
5404439216
Rating
75
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Professional Societies, Associations

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,512,888
Expenses
$2,196,563
Assets
$922,514
Liabilities
$225,570

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

Leadership & pay

42 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • ERIN BURCHAM (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • ERIN BURCHAM (CEO): $168,640 total reported compensation
  • MARTY ROSENDALE (ENTREPENEUR IN RESIDENCE): $120,000 total reported compensation
  • JESSICA EDWARDS (INNOVATION STUDIO DIRECTOR): $100,400 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 organization supports the region by connecting, communicating, and collaborating with stakeholders to grow and strengthen our innovation economy.

What it reported doing in 2025

Rbia strengthens the regional capital ecosystem by building investor networks and creating the infrastructure that connects investors to investable companies. Activities include operating commonwealth angels, the region's angel investor network, producing investor roadshows and pitch events that connect regional startups to early-stage capital, attracting out-of-region investors to deploy capital into roanoke-blacksburg companies, and delivering investor education programming that grows the pool of active investors in the region.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 78% for direct work, and 22% for grants.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 82
  • Transparency & Controls: 66
  • Accountability: 84
  • Sustainability: 12
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

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

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.3%; rating input score 92; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 28.5%; rating input score 28; 30th 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; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 62
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -45.2%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.42; rating input score 21; 21st percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.24; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 17.7%; rating input score 20; 20th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 21.2% per year; rating input score 100; 81st percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 21.9% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 24.8% per year; rating input score 100; 85th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 80% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 39 of 39 board members independent · 5 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $1.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $169K · 42 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 21 of 22 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 10 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 13 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 8 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.

  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 28/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 21/100.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 20/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 22/100.