Arthritis Foundation South Central Region Inc

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
943454386
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2015
Forms available
Form 990 2015
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
Phone
2148264361
Rating
68
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Health

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$3,275,291
Expenses
$4,035,868
Assets
$0
Liabilities
$0

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

18 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SUSAN CARTER (CEO)

Highest reported compensation

  • SUSAN CARTER (CEO): $212,883 total reported compensation
  • Nancy MacGregor (VP of Finance): $64,196 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2015. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

The arthritis foundation is committed to raising awareness and reducing the unacceptable impact of the nation's leading cause of disability attacking people of all ages. The foundation funds innovative research to restore mobility and lessen debilitating pain caused by the disease; provides education, help and support to those suffering from or at risk of developing arthritis; and fights for health care policies to ensure people with arthritis have access to the care that they need. The south central region serves Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

What it reported doing in 2015

Patient & community service: we provide trusted information, powerful health tracking tools, and ways to connect with others. Camps and family weekends are programs offered specifically for those impacted by juvenile arthritis and related diseases. The region annually participates in the national ja conference.

Operating model

Revenue model
Donor-supported. 78% of the money available for current operations came from contributions and gifts.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 85% 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.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. A relatively small share of voting board members are independent and fundraising costs are high for each dollar raised.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 81
  • Transparency & Controls: 88
  • Accountability: 37
  • Sustainability: 6
  • Growth: 40

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 98.3%; rating input score 98
  • Program expense ratio: 75.9%; rating input score 76
  • Fundraising efficiency: $3.85 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 15; 15th percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 62nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 3 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 50
    • Compensation committee: Pass
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Pass
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 71st percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 0%; rating input score 0; 3rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 8 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 89
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Fail
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: -23.2%; rating input score 5; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0; rating input score 0; 0th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: Limited
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.9%; rating input score 35; 35th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: -9.5% per year; rating input score 0; 9th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 0.2% per year; rating input score 100; 26th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: -12.8% per year; rating input score 0; 5th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 98.3% of revenue deployed · 75.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 0 of 3 board members independent · 8 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 3 filed program accomplishments · $3.1M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $213K · 18 people listed · 3 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Consistency: 31 of 31 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 9 filed schedules · includes major donors, grants, and executive pay
  • Filing history: 6 filing years from 2010 to 2015
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 4 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 2 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 — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 15/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 5/100.
  • High — Growth: Program expense growth scored 0/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 0/100.
  • High — Growth: Asset growth scored 0/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Other executive compensation review process not reported.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 35/100.