Argenta Community Development Corp

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
710730884
IRS 990 coverage
2013–2013
Forms available
Form 990 2013
Location
North Little Rock, AR, USA
Rating
70
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Community, Neighborhood Development

Reported finances

Revenue
$234,408
Expenses
$461,572
Assets
$3,267,353
Liabilities
$1,567,862

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

14 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • HANNAH VOGLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)
  • KENT WALKER (PRESIDENT)
  • EDDIE MARTIN (VICE PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • HANNAH VOGLER (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $12,460 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2013. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Promote home ownership for low to middle income families and improve the quality of neighborhoods within the target area by means of property rehabilitation

What it reported doing in 2013

General (vestal urban farm, foundation grants, home program, nsp program)

Operating model

Revenue model
Mixed. Its operating money came from several sources; no one source provided a clear majority.
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 - 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: 53
  • Transparency & Controls: 92
  • Accountability: 100
  • Sustainability: 33
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 46.3%; rating input score 46
  • Program expense ratio: 51%; rating input score 51
  • Fundraising efficiency: $273.08 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 95; 95th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd 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; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • 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: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -96.9%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 7.08; rating input score 85; 85th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.48; rating input score 17; 17th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 2.7%; rating input score 44; 44th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: Limited
  • Asset growth: Limited

Details

  • Where the money goes: 46.3% of revenue deployed · 51% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 8 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $235K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $12K · 14 people listed
  • Consistency: 22 of 22 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • Related organizations: 1 filed related-organization link
  • 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.

  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 46/100.
  • Review — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 51/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 2/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 17/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 44/100.
  • High — Grant Readiness: Automatic revocation: this organization had its federal tax-exempt status automatically revoked.