Arlington Community Services Inc
Nonprofit profile at a glance
- EIN
- 592961287
- IRS 990 coverage
- 2022–2025
- Forms available
- Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2021, Form 990-N 2010
- Location
- Jacksonville, FL, USA
- Phone
- 9048930263
- Rating
- 53
- Verdict
- MIXED
- Rating confidence
- Moderate
- Sector
- Human Service Organizations
- Affiliation
- Christianity
Reported finances
- Revenue
- $407,755
- Expenses
- $109,547
- Assets
- $436,035
- Liabilities
- $278
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.
Leadership & pay
13 people listed
Executive titles in this filing
- Mary Weber (Executive Director)
- Charles Harb (President)
- Andrew Clarke (Vice President)
Highest reported compensation
- Mary Weber (Executive Director): $28,280 total reported compensation
- Alice M Parent (Assistant Director): $18,747 total reported compensation
- Susan J Stevens (Assistant): $7,065 total reported compensation
Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.
Overview
Mission
With the spirit of love, we will assist people who need food and financial help using resources donated to ACS by those willing to give of their time and resources to lend a helping hand.
What it reported doing in 2025
ACS provided 100,134 meals to 4,045 families (5,563 individuals). Expenses include costs of $14,033 to augment the food, bottled water, and non-food inventory toothpaste, toothbrushes, soap, washcloths, laundry detergent, etc.. In addition, food not requiring cooking was issued to 3,024 homeless individuals. Included in the expenses above are the cost of bus passes to provide transportation to clients seeking employment. This service may be continued to individuals until newly employed clients receive pay. Special Thanksgiving meals were given to two families and 20 gift cards of $50 each were given out for Christmas dinner. Volunteer time providing food distribution and receiving food and non-food donations and administration totaled 2,790 hours.
Operating model
- Revenue model
- Donor-supported. 99% 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.
The verdict
MIXED - 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: 23
- Transparency & Controls: 74
- Accountability: 74
- Sustainability: 74
- Growth: 60
Detailed rating inputs
Financial Efficiency
- Mission deployment rate: 7.3%; rating input score 7
- Program expense ratio: 25.1%; rating input score 25
- Fundraising efficiency: $359.24 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 94; 94th percentile among comparable filings
Transparency & Controls
- Consistency checks: 92.9%; rating input score 93; 26th percentile among comparable filings
- Pay-setting controls: Limited
- Foreign activity oversight: Limited
- Grant itemization coverage: 48.9%; rating input score 49; 44th percentile among comparable filings
- Major donor itemization: Limited
- Related-party transparency: Limited
Accountability
- Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
- Governance controls: 3 of 8 controls in place; rating input score 38
- Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
- Whistleblower policy: Fail
- Document-retention policy: Fail
- 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: 73.1%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
- Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.98; rating input score 75; 75th percentile among comparable filings
- Liabilities to assets ratio: 0; rating input score 51; 51st percentile among comparable filings
- Officer compensation ratio: 49.4%; rating input score 3; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
Growth
- Program expense growth: -29.8% per year; rating input score 0; 4th percentile among comparable filings
- Revenue growth: 16.9% per year; rating input score 100; 83rd percentile among comparable filings
- Asset growth: 19.4% per year; rating input score 100; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
Details
- Where the money goes: 7.3% of revenue deployed · 25.1% of spending went to programs
- Governance: 10 of 10 board members independent · 3 of 8 filing controls reported
- Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $27K in reported program spending
- Leadership: top reported pay $28K · 13 people listed
- Consistency: 22 of 23 current checks pass · 1 finding to review
- Schedules: 4 filed schedules · includes grants
- Filing history: 4 filing years from 2022 to 2025
- Contacts: How to reach this organization
- Money network: 7 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.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 7/100.
- High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 25/100.
- Moderate — Accountability: Governance controls: 4 of 7 not reported.
- Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Grant itemization coverage scored 49/100.
- High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
- Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
- High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 3/100.
- Review — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 51/100.