Virginians Organized for Interfaith

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
271207254
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Arlington, VA, USA
Rating
74
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development
Affiliation
Interfaith

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$989,587
Expenses
$775,154
Assets
$1,639,018
Liabilities
$14,415

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

Leadership & pay

15 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • JESSICA SARRIOT (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • JAMES PEARISTEIN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • JESSICA SARRIOT (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $142,436 total reported compensation
  • JAMES PEARISTEIN (CO-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $131,052 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 aim is to address injustices arising fromisolation and racial and socio-economicinequity, through a process that strengthensour diverse social fabric. By strengtheninginstitutions and fostering publicrelationships, broad-based relationalorganizing serves as a calc

What it reported doing in 2025

Voice is a broad-based multi-racial, multi-faith, multiple-issue, multi-country, strictly non-partisan citizens organization dedicated to addressing the issues (affordable housing, healthcare, etc.) affecting the lives of low income residents in northern Virginia. Rooted in local congregations and associations, voices mission is to educate, train, and develop community leaders to research and act to devise solutions to these community issues.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 71% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% 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 - 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 some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 59
  • Transparency & Controls: 94
  • Accountability: 69
  • Sustainability: 62
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 58.3%; rating input score 58
  • Program expense ratio: 70.4%; rating input score 70
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.81 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 31; 31st percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 22nd 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: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Fail
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 21.7%; rating input score 74; 74th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 2.11; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 61; 61st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 35.3%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 2.9% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 9.6% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 58.3% of revenue deployed · 70.4% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 2 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $546K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $142K · 15 people listed
  • Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 15 filing years from 2011 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 2 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: Filed and resolved organization relationships.
  • 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 — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 58/100.
  • High — Accountability: Governance controls: 6 of 8 not reported.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 31/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.