Rva Hampton Roads Mega Region Collaborative Dba Rva757 Connects

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
844486132
IRS 990 coverage
2020–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8048372481
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Urban, Community Economic Development

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$770,580
Expenses
$743,303
Assets
$134,484
Liabilities
$42,287

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

Leadership & pay

78 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JOHN W MARTIN (PRESIDENT AND CEO)
  • GREGORY J GILLIGAN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • GREGORY J GILLIGAN (VICE PRESIDENT): $153,336 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Improve the economic success and quality of life for everyone in the rva and 757 regions and educate business and professional leaders and civic volunteers from both regions as to opportunities to enhance the quality of life and regional economic performance by working together on various projects.

What it reported doing in 2025

Provide information for director and member education on important issues, establish and build on the i-64 innovation corridor brand, and identify and advance major opportunities that will meaningfully benefit and advance our two regions for generations to come. These include the following initiatives- maintained self-funded operations- recruited and sustained an engaged and productive board, executive committee, and committees- accelerated trail757 and Virginia capital trail agreement- created a comparison (msas and megaregions) performance dashboard for rva757 connects / i-64 innovation corridor- held 10 successful monthly innovation spotlight webinars

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 95% 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

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 75
  • Transparency & Controls: 65
  • Accountability: 77
  • Sustainability: 26
  • Growth: 80

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 75%; rating input score 75
  • Program expense ratio: 77.7%; rating input score 78
  • Fundraising efficiency: $27.9 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 64; 64th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 0 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 0
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Missing
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 97.1%; rating input score 97; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • 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: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.5%; rating input score 41; 41st percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.31; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 20.6%; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 23.4% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 15.9% per year; rating input score 100; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.6% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 75% of revenue deployed · 77.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 68 of 70 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $578K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $153K · 78 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 1 contractor listed · $360K reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2020 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 41/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 19/100.