Westminster-canterbury on Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 541666603
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2009–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Virginia Beach, VA, USA
- Phone
- 7574961778
- Rating
- 76
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Standard
- Sector
- Single Organization Support
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $2,666,640
- Expenses
- $1,685,557
- Assets
- $22,474,471
- Liabilities
- $330,230
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
29 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- J BENJAMIN UNKLE JR (PRESIDENT/CEO (**SEE STATEMENT))
- ASHLEY ALLMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
Highest reported compensation
- J BENJAMIN UNKLE JR (PRESIDENT/CEO (**SEE STATEMENT)): $577,014 total reported compensation
- DAVID MYERS (CFO/ASSISTANT TREASURER): $449,966 total reported compensation
- ASHLEY ALLMAN (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $300,365 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
See schedule o
What it reported doing in 2024
Westminster-canterbury on chesapeake bay foundation provided financial assistance to applicants who meet the admission requirements and have served their church and/or community, but lack sufficient resources for admission. The foundation also provides financial assistance for residents, who through no fault of their own, experience financial difficulties and can no longer meet their monthly obligations. During the year, 36 residents received monthly fee assistance of $663,171. The foundation also paid an additional $169,230 to 44 residents to assist with medical and other miscellaneous expenses. The resident education fund provides scholarship grants to employees and children of employees enrolled in a program (usually a degreegranting program) at an accredited institution of higher learning. During the year, the fund awarded scholarship grants totaling $69,789 to 32 recipients.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 79% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 66% of its reported program spending out as grants.
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 fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 67
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 88
- Sustainability: 85
- Growth: 100
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 65.9%; rating input score 66
- Program expense ratio: 80.5%; rating input score 81
- Fundraising efficiency: $8.34 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd 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: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 95.7%; rating input score 96; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Fail
- 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: Pass
Sustainability
- Operating margin: 36.8%; rating input score 88; 88th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 13.33; rating input score 93; 93rd percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.01; rating input score 83; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 5.1%; rating input score 53; 53rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: 2% per year; rating input score 100; 22nd percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 2.1% per year; rating input score 100; 21st percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 5% per year; rating input score 100; 34th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 65.9% of revenue deployed · 80.5% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 22 of 23 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $1.4M in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $577K · 29 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 25 of 25 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2009 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: Resolved incoming and outgoing counterparties from filed money flows.
- 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
- Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 53/100.