Arkansas Alliance of Recovery-Centered Organizations

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
993978481
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Little Rock, AR, USA
Phone
5016125983
Rating
66
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Mental Health, Crisis Intervention N.E.C.

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$1,000,000
Expenses
$979,353
Assets
$20,647
Liabilities
$0

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

Leadership & pay

6 people listed

Highest reported compensation

  • Patricia Brannin (Administrator): $20,049 total reported compensation
  • Latrese Atkins (Grants Manager): $12,551 total reported compensation

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

Overview

Mission

The Arkansas Alliance for Recovery Centered Organizations activities center on providing service to support individuals inrecovery from behavioral health disorders including both substance use and mental health.

What it reported doing in 2024

Contractors paid to provide peer support services to individuals recovering from substance use disorders and other behavioralhealth issues. These services included group classes on recovery and life skills, peer counseling on recovery methods, andassistance in obtaining other recovery support such as employment, transportation, housing, healthcare, and treatment. Servicesare provided by two or more peer specialists at each of four recovery community organizations. Over 2,000 people were served withthe programs in jails, hospitals, and community setting in four different corners of the state.

Operating model

Revenue model
Grant-funded. 100% of the money available for current operations came from government grants.
Distribution model
Grant intermediary. The nonprofit sent 99% 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 a relatively small share of voting board members are independent.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 83
  • Transparency & Controls: 72
  • Accountability: 45
  • Sustainability: 38
  • Growth: NotEnoughData

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 92.7%; rating input score 93
  • Program expense ratio: 94.7%; rating input score 95
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

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; 76th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 50%; rating input score 50; 11th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Fail
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Fail
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 2.1%; rating input score 42; 42nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.02; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 91; 91st percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 3.3%; rating input score 56; 56th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

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

Details

  • Where the money goes: 92.7% of revenue deployed · 94.7% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 2 of 4 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 4 filed program accomplishments · $979K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $20K · 6 people listed · 0 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 4 contractors listed · $918K reported
  • Consistency: 18 of 18 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 6 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 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.
  • Review — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 50/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 5 of 8 not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 2/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 42/100.
  • Review — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 56/100.