Arca Foundation
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 850437970
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2010–2024
- Forms available
- Form 990 2024
- Location
- Albuquerque, NM, USA
- Phone
- 5053326700
- Rating
- 61
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Federated Giving Programs
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $739,735
- Expenses
- $435,385
- Assets
- $12,657,872
- Liabilities
- $2,875,969
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
17 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- DAVID SAHD (PRESIDENT)
- MICHELLE HARMON (CEO/PRESIDEN)
- EDWARD J KAUL (FORMER CEO/P)
Highest reported compensation
- EDWARD J KAUL (FORMER CEO/P): $196,646 total reported compensation
- MICHELLE HARMON (CEO/PRESIDEN): $131,346 total reported compensation
- WARREN HAYSLIP (CFO): $118,222 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
Provide resources and support to arca. A 501(c)(3) organization and a related party.
What it reported doing in 2024
Arca foundation is trustee of two special needs trusts, arca foundation donor pooled trust and arca foundation grantor pooled trust. Both trusts are used for the benefit of people with developmental disabilities. Deposits are made by the person with a developmental disability (grantor trust) or by a party for the person with a developmental disability (donor trust). Withdrawals below 2,000 are approved by the arca cfo, with higher withdrawal amounts requiring approval from a trust officer from the pooled trust committee. Remainder amounts are determined by the joinder agreement.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 64% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
- Distribution model
- Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 100% of its reported program spending out as grants.
- Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.
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 a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 31
- Transparency & Controls: 75
- Accountability: 95
- Sustainability: 79
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 30%; rating input score 30
- Program expense ratio: 37.3%; rating input score 37
- Fundraising efficiency: $4.75 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 16; 16th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
- Compensation committee: Missing
- Independent consultant: Missing
- Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
- Written employment contract: Missing
- Compensation survey or study: Missing
- Board or committee approval: Pass
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 76th 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: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- 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: 41.1%; rating input score 89; 89th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 29.07; rating input score 98; 98th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.23; rating input score 29; 29th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 9.5%; rating input score 38; 38th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -8.3% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 1.2% per year; rating input score 100; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 8.7% per year; rating input score 100; 54th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 30% of revenue deployed · 37.3% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
- Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $162K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $197K · 17 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
- Consistency: 20 of 20 current checks pass
- Schedules: 8 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
- Filing history: 15 filing years from 2010 to 2024
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
- Related organizations: 2 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.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 30/100.
- Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 37/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 16/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 29/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 38/100.