The Richmond Forum

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541382433
IRS 990 coverage
2018–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024, Form 990-T 2022
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043303993
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,236,406
Expenses
$2,944,603
Assets
$5,859,188
Liabilities
$1,040,378

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

Leadership & pay

36 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HEATHER MULLINS CRISLIP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • HEATHER MULLINS CRISLIP (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $264,646 total reported compensation
  • SANDRA WHEELER (DIRECTOR OF RFSDI): $121,517 total reported compensation
  • KATHRYN BLESSING (DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT - ENDED): $112,339 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

To present powerful voices so richmond can learn. To empower local voices so richmond can lead.

What it reported doing in 2024

The richmond forum presents live speeches, debates and conversations featuring world leaders, business leaders, and leaders from the arts and sciences in order to foster community exploration, discussion, and understanding of the issues and trends that shape our lives today. As an extension of its work to promote the practice and skills of civil discourse in our community, the richmond forum also supports speech and debate programs in the region's public schools through financial grants and other support.

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 90% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and most voting board members are independent. Few specific pay-setting methods are documented in the filing; unanswered boxes are not proof of absence and the filing does not identify recipients for some grant dollars.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 69
  • Transparency & Controls: 54
  • Accountability: 95
  • Sustainability: 54
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 69.8%; rating input score 70
  • Program expense ratio: 75.4%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: $12.18 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 17th 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: 22.5%; rating input score 23; 13th 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 88
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • 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: 9%; rating input score 60; 60th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 1.99; rating input score 62; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.18; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 16.9%; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 11.2% per year; rating input score 100; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 10.2% per year; rating input score 100; 69th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 5.6% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 69.8% of revenue deployed · 75.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 30 of 30 board members independent · 7 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.2M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $265K · 36 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 27 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 6 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 7 filing years from 2018 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 7 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 3 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: Pay-setting controls scored 0/100.
  • High — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 23/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 44/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Form 990 shared with the board not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 16/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 47/100.