Arcadia Information Network
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 383226544
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2011–2017
- Forms available
- Form 990 2017, Form 990-EZ 2010
- Location
- Kalamazoo, MI, USA
- Phone
- 2692548224
- Rating
- 75
- Verdict
- SUPPORTED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Centers to Support the Independence of Specific Populations
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $90,471
- Expenses
- $95,895
- Assets
- $17,739
- Liabilities
- $2,748
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
6 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Allison Hammond (Executive Director)
Highest reported compensation
- Allison Hammond (Executive Director): $59,500 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2017. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
The Institutes missions to provide current, relevant, well-researched information, generated through training, publication and action projects to make it possible for children and adults with disabilities to fully participate in community life.
What it reported doing in 2017
Community Broker Project- compliments the Bridge and Community Participation Projects by actively working to find employment and places to live for participants. This is in addition to promoting involvement in community activities. Community Brokering begins with a Personal Future Planning session that prepares for and connects people to meaningful activities, competitive employment , and inclusive living arrangements of their own choice. The pre-employment training teaches essentials like identifying strengths and gifts, navigating transportation, manaing ones own volunteer experience, creating lasting community connection, and potentiall using fewer services.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
- Distribution model
- Direct operator. The filing allocates 100% 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 - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. The required major-donor schedule is missing or incomplete and program spending has declined or grown slowly.
Rating breakdown
- Financial Efficiency: 88
- Transparency & Controls: 68
- Accountability: 90
- Sustainability: 28
- Growth: 0
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 100%; rating input score 100
- Program expense ratio: 97.2%; rating input score 97
- Fundraising efficiency: Limited
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 11th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: Limited
- Major donor itemization: No; rating input score 0
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 6 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 75
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
- Whistleblower policy: Pass
- Document-retention policy: Pass
- CEO compensation review process: Pass
- Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
- Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
- Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
- Audit committee oversight: Missing
- Independent financial-statement audit: Fail
Sustainability
- Operating margin: -6%; rating input score 48; 48th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.18; rating input score 10; 10th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.15; rating input score 18; 18th percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 62%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -25% per year; rating input score 0; 20th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: -10.1% per year; rating input score 0; 36th percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: -14.9% per year; rating input score 0; 13th percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 100% of revenue deployed · 97.2% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 5 of 5 board members independent · 6 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $93K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $60K · 6 people listed
- Consistency: 20 of 21 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 3 filed schedules · includes major donors
- Filing history: 7 filing years from 2011 to 2017
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 2 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 — Transparency & Controls: Major donor itemization scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- High — Growth: Revenue growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 10/100.
- Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 48/100.
- Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Schedule A contributions reconciliation did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 5/100.
- High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 18/100.
- High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.