Virginia Intermont College

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
540505972
IRS 990 coverage
2009–2016
Forms available
Form 990 2016
Location
Bristol, VA, USA
Phone
2766696101
Rating
43
Verdict
MIXED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Undergraduate College (4-year)

Reported finances

Revenue
$-7,123,375
Expenses
$249,772
Assets
$962,321
Liabilities
$5,559,946

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

5 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • LINDA MORGAN (SR VP OF ADMINISTRATION): $17,316 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2016. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

To provide student instruction, scholarships, and support.

What it reported doing in 2016

Student instruction & scholarships - Virginia intermont graduated its final class in may of 2014 and is in the process of winding down operations.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 81% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
No current program activity. The filing reports no program spending for the current year.

The verdict

MIXED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 24
  • Growth: 0

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • 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: 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: 2 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 25
    • 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: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -103.5%; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.85; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 5.78; rating input score 1; 1st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 19; 19th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -116.8% per year; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: -41.2% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -13.5% per year; rating input score 0; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 4 of 4 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $17K · 5 people listed
  • Consistency: 21 of 21 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 8 filing years from 2009 to 2016
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • 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.

Grant-readiness screening is separate from the live rating, not a measure of program quality. Review the source records before making a grant decision.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 7 not reported.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 18/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 46/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 1/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 19/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Federal audit findings: this organization reported findings in its latest federal Single Audit.