Arizona Capital Representation Project

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
860624668
IRS 990 coverage
2011–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Tucson, AZ, USA
Phone
5202298550
Rating
84
Verdict
STRONG
Rating confidence
Standard

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,218,891
Expenses
$1,172,688
Assets
$777,551
Liabilities
$147,628

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

13 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Amy Armstrong (Executive Director)
  • John Canby (President)
  • Andrew Silverman (Vice President)

Highest reported compensation

  • Amy Armstrong (Executive Director): $181,916 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

ACRP is a non-profit legal services organization that assists indigent persons facing the death penalty and sentenced to death in Arizona through direct representation, pro-bono consulting services and training for capital defense professionals, and public outreach and education.

What it reported doing in 2024

In FY24-25, the Arizona Capital Representation Project (ACRP) directly represented 13 individuals sentenced to death, as well as seven adolescent offenders serving life without the possibility of parole. ACRP provided pro bono consulting assistance to nearly 100 capital cases at all stages of litigation (from pre-trial through clemency). ACRP organized and hosted or co-hosted one multi-day, intensive bring-your-own-case training seminars. ACRP staff further helped plan and serve as faculty at several other training seminars in Arizona and across the country.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 69% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
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

STRONG - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 87
  • Transparency & Controls: 90
  • Accountability: 79
  • Sustainability: 37
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 84.6%; rating input score 85
  • Program expense ratio: 87.9%; rating input score 88
  • Fundraising efficiency: $152.59 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 90; 90th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 4 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 67
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Pass
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • 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: 4 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Fail
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 3.8%; rating input score 47; 47th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.66; rating input score 30; 30th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.19; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 15.5%; rating input score 22; 22nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 38th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 4.3% per year; rating input score 100; 39th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 2.5% per year; rating input score 100; 27th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 84.6% of revenue deployed · 87.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 12 of 12 board members independent · 4 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $182K · 13 people listed · 4 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2011 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 1 filed money-flow record
  • 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 — Accountability: Governance controls: 3 of 7 not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 47/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 30/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 22/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 32/100.