Virginia Environmental Endowment

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
541041973
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Richmond, VA, USA
Phone
8043793591
Rating
82
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Fund Raising and/or Fund Distribution

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$9,915,505
Expenses
$2,939,695
Assets
$32,737,298
Liabilities
$505,386

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

Leadership & pay

9 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • DIXON M BUTLER (PRESIDENT)
  • ROBERT B SMITH JR (SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • JOSEPH H MAROON (SECRETARY, EXECUTIVE DIREC): $217,635 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 endowment's mission is to improve the quality of the environment by using its capital, expertise, and resources to fund projects and programs that encourage all sectors to work together to prevent pollution, improve water quality, restore the chesapeake bay, conserve natural resources, promote environmental literacy and public awareness, and address emerging issues. Although accorded a national scope by its charter, the endowment currently limits awards to eligible organizations and projects conducted primarily in the state of Virginia.

What it reported doing in 2025

The endowment made grants to organizations and projects in three grant programs: the Virginia program, the james river water quality improvement program (jrwqip) which focuses on producing significant on-the-ground water quality benefits, and the community conservation program. Community conservation program is funded by $3 million that vee received as part of the agreement the commonwealth of Virginia made with the company constructing the mountain valley pipeline to offset impacts from the clearing of the pipeline path in southwest virgnia.Virginia program grants were made for projects throughout the commonwealth that aligned with the endowment's strategic priorities. The purposes of the Virginia program grants included advancing land conservation, protecting water quality, advancing environmental literacy, protecting the chesapeake bay and supporting coastal resilience and adaptation.the jrwqip grants were made for projects that will likely reduce the amount of nutrient and sediment pollution flowing into the james river by more than four million pounds annually.

Operating model

Revenue model
Investment-supported. 100% of the money available for current operations came from recurring investment income.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 82% of its reported program spending out as grants.

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 some filed totals do not add up.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 75
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 85
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
  • Program expense ratio: 94.9%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 93.3%; rating input score 93; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Pass
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 86.1%; rating input score 86; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.4%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 11.14; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.02; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 7.4%; rating input score 43; 43rd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 10.7% per year; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.9% per year; rating input score 100; 44th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 4.7% per year; rating input score 100; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 94.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 8 of 8 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $2.8M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $218K · 9 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 30 of 31 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 12 filing years from 2013 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 36 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 34 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.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 8 not reported.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 43/100.